President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 25, 2010 09:01 AM UTC
34 Comments
n/t
File under “what was she thinking?”.
Having been around the legislature and various laws I can understand some lack of knowledge.
HOWEVER – that does not include any law, rule or regulation regarding being a politician or candidate. If you are running for office or are in office you have to know the stuff. Not only for you but your staff and volunteers too. The basic candidacy laws are simple, the finance laws are complex.
In this case Curry should have known what would happen, and if not she should have looked into (or had someone else do it) what the consequences of her action would be.
All the pols I know make sure they (or a staff member) are aware of all the laws and rules which they and their compaigns have to comply, when the deadlines are, etc.
Kathleen is one of the best legislators under the dome. She consistently listens and acts in a measured manner meant to benefit Coloradans and her district.
I’m not a shill for her, but I have worked with her on many bills and I would rather have Rep. Curry on my side than most other legislators. It is sad that we may lose an intelligent legislator that helps bridge the R/D divide on such important issues as water and energy.
If you want a legislator that is intelligent, understands the issues, isn’t afraid to stand up to partisanship, and can negotiate reasonable solutions, Kathleen is it. The West Slope needs as many strong legislators as possible and, I repeat myself, it is a shame to know that Kathleen may not return next year.
And I hope we haven’t seen the last of her.
As far as being ignorant of the laws, she’s not. I spoke to her shortly after her decision to unaffiliate. She knew exactly what she was getting into, and was confident at the time that she was well enough known and well enough respected in her district to win as a write-in. I haven’t spoken to her since, so I don’t know if she still feels that way.
It’s going to be tough, but if anyone can do it, she can.
I need to vote in the races for Senate, Governor, Congress, County Commissioner, Coroner,…, ballot issues, local referred measures, and still remember to write in her name.
Oh, forgot, most folks cannot even name their State Legislator, much less write her name.
With no $, it will be as close to impossible as can be to run a write in campaign.
for both the primary and the general doesn’t equate to “no money.” If she’s a viable candidate, she can raise the funds. Whether she raises enough to get the word out about her write-in campaign is another question, but let’s drop this canard that she’ll have “no money.”
If Curry really thought she was well-known enough to win a write-in campaign, then she deserves to be in this position. Voters barely know anything about candidates for U.S. Senate or Congress; polls consistently show that most people can’t identify their current member of CONGRESS. There’s no way a state legislator, in any district, would have enough name ID to win a write-in campaign.
haven’t you learned yet that only naive fools care about a legislator’s talents and qualities, and how well they have or might serve the public interest in office? (Said with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek).
There is a sickness in the political blogosphere, which conflates understanding the cold realities of the world with becoming their agent and advocate. It’s time to give at least as much attention and praise to the skills and abilities which serve a candidate well if elected, as to the ones that serve a candidate well in his or her efforts to get elected.
(Yes, I know, that unless they are elected, blah, blah, blah. That does not change the fact that reserving praise and condemnation for those with the best and worst campaigning skills and strategies reinforces rather than refines our dysfunctional selection mechanisms, in other words, is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution).
that she best represents them to mount a huge volunteer effort to get people to write her in. Agree with Johnpauljones that even such an effort will probably be futile since most voters are barely aware that a state legislature exists, much less who represents them in it. Going door to door, you have to be happy if the person who answers can name their US Rep. and both Senators.
Most tuned-in Dems probably don’t feel that Curry’s been doing us many favors lately but the most important thing for state legislators is to give their small communities of constituents a voice. Her decision to change parties while ignoring a deadline and trust in a long shot write-in quest, if it was a choice and not a slip, was hardly the way to give her or loyal constituents who support her, the best chance.
but it’s for those who deal in information, either professionally or avocationally, to inform that decision. I make no judgment on the content of that information, only that her qualities, and defects, are at least a relevant component, and, IMHO, almost always the most relevant component.
Just pointing out that, taking every word of yours into consideration, she just hasn’t given herself a very good chance to win. Disagree?
I wasn’t commenting on that, or on her. I was commenting on us, and continuing to emphasize an idea that I think is useful to emphasize, and worth repeatedly emphasizing.
You’ve been on this bend for as long as I’ve seen your posts here on Pols.
If you can’t win your campaign because you’re too wordy and too intellectual for the average voter to like you, then you probably shouldn’t serve the public as an elected official.
It sounds like you want to use your obvious intellect to make changes in our society. I’m sorry, but it’s clear from your campaign that the state house is not the way you’re going to do that. You’d be hell of a policymaker, just stop trying to be an elected one.
Kathleen Curry is smart, talented, and a negotiator to a fault. By all means, I’d love to have more Independents at the state house. But the reality is that she will not be returning, a reality some of her statements and understandings have hinted at. I’m glad she’s been able to stand by her actions, and I certainly will not be remiss if she returns to the state capitol.
But she won’t. So any discussion about her “talents and qualities” is a moot point until they can prove to the public that they are legitimate enough a candidate to get elected. That’s our system. It’s been around since the birth of this nation. And any commentary in the blogosphere about elctability is just and fair; you cannot be an elected official without the ability to get elected.
I’ll vote for you, Steve! Even if you do sometimes use too many words… 😉
but Burden may have a bit of a point? You might consider whether more of a policy than an elected political role might not be be the best use of your talents, not to mention the possibility of making rather spending money and how good it might feel to stop running into that wall? We really do care, Steve.
Never had it crossed my mind to run for office, until almost the moment that I decided to, realizing that, in my district, the Democratic candidacy was a vacuum to be filled rather than a coveted position to be vied for. Despite a lifetime dedicated to trying to understand the nature of the human world, and even when I left teaching for law school with the intention of being engaged in public policy formation in some manner or another, it had never really occurred to me, in large part because I’m not interested in those aspects which aren’t about designing, advocating for, and implementing sound public policies.
But I saw that running for office would do no harm, while enabling me to throw myself into the larger arena of public policy advocacy.
Here’s what I wrote recently in response to similar criticisms:
and
Instead of posting long-winded bullshit here.
Here you’re gonna reach maybe 35 people. And how many of them vote in your district?
I’m just sayin’
I walk my district every day, and yet still find time to post long-winded bullshit here. I guess I’m just good at multi-tasking.
So you are basing your complete lack of effort on someone else’s efforts? Has it occurred to you that the reason the Democratic Party isn’t giving your race any support is precisely because you are running a vacuous campaign?
Why would the Party even begin to support a “candidate” that has made it clear he isn’t really running for office?
Why would they give resources, time and dime to someone wasting their time?
We have a serious uphill battle this year to keep the State House and I think it’s to be expected that the State Party is going to devote its resources to campaigns and candidates that aren’t making a mockery out of running for office.
Please don’t run in 2012. I’d rather see this district put up no candidate at all than watch you make a mockery of the Democratic Party again in 2 years.
Forgive me. I don’t mean to sound harsh but it’s July next week and you have made it clear that other than providing your name to fill in space on the ballot and getting your picture taken with fellow politicians, you aren’t interested in running for this office at all. If you aren’t willing to devote your time or your dime, why should anyone else?
I’m walking my district daily, talking with voters, speaking at engagements, getting more earned media than my incumbent opponent (and, though my fund-raising was weak, outraised him four-to-one this election cycle), got myself interviewed on a local PBS political talk show, have gotten myself featured several times in the local paper and my op-eds published both there and in the Denver Post, formed a non-partisan community organization in order to reach out to moderate unaffiliateds and Republicans in my district (and actually have some moderate Republicans as staunch supporters as a result), spoke at the Jeffco School Board meeting about community volunteerism and have worked with the school district administration to implement a community volunteer program in the schools, and communicate so constantly with the Dems in my district that it’s a bit of a joke among them how hard I try to keep them stoked and enthusiastic about our campaign, with what they themselves recognize is less success than my efforts deserve.
All of that on top of doing the other things I listed above that I have been doing to actually positively affect the social institutional landscape of our state.
In preparation for this, I studied law, selecting all of my electives with an eye to public policy issues, and interned with the Assistant House Majority leader and with a small policy LLC, in order to be the best informed and prepared candidate possible.
And all at considerable personal cost, both in terms of my own actual expenditures, and in turns of lost or delayed opportunities, postponing taking the Bar, though I have a family to support, and discovering that many jobs for which I would otherwise be qualified are closed to me as a result of my candidacy.
If that’s what you call a mockery, then so be it.
you’d understand that my choices of how to distribute my efforts have had nothing to do with empty rituals (“just having a name on the ballot”), and everything to do with trying to improve our state’s social institutional landscape. That’s what I’m focused on, and I truly believe that my approach to my candidacy maximzes rather than minimizes its value in that pursuit.
What you impute to me isn’t what I said, and, more importantly, it isn’t how I’ve acted. I’ve invested a great deal of time and effort into my candidacy. The only thing I’ve made clear is that my efforts are focused on what I consider the ultimate goal: Improving the quality of life for all Coloradans.
You obviously have a realistic view of what you are doing here and somebody has to run for us in those pretty much impossible to get districts. It’s humiliating being a Dem in a district where you don’t even get to have a Dem on the ballot. That used to sometimes be the case for me when I lived in HD37 and now I’m in HD38(D-Rice) and we got it done in 2006 and again in 2008 after a more than 35 year drought. Thank you for carrying the load for Dems in your district and for all of us this time and best of luck.
It’s never moot to discuss the qualities that make for a good legislator, or governor, or whatever, because that discussion affects how we think and what we focus on. Is it relevant when events happen that affect electoral outcomes? Of course. Is it the only, or even main, thing that political discourse should be about? Of course not. Whether a discussion of such qualities is relevant in the particular case of Kathleen Curry, in the particular issue of whether she’ll be in the state legislature, is just one of many dimensions which affects whether and when it is a relevant dimension. I think it is rarely optimal to discuss a candidate or official without some reference to their qualities relevant to the office they held or are seeking to hold.
As for my choice to run as the Democratic candidate in HD28, first, I appreciate your kind words, and, second, other than your assumption that running for office can’t serve the ends you identify, I agree with you to a large extent. There are some conclusions you’re jumpting to based on incomplete information, conclusions that my own experience strongly refute, but there’s no point in my addressing them here (this being the source and medium of that incomplete information).
Again, I have been very up-front about the fact that my candidacy is just one component of a larger effort to make my own continuing marginal contribution to the improvement of our social institutional landscape, and not one which depends exlusively, or even primarily, on the outcome of the election on November 2, 2010. Visit the Jeffco Pols thread on the revised Jeffco Line for a more detailed explanation of my philosophy and strategy. To put it briefly: There is nothing lost (not even the displacement of a better candidate), but something gained. It’s just a rational course of action.
that I didn’t say that discussions of electability are irrelevant, just that they are not the only thing that is relevant, and, in the long run, not the thing that is most relevant. Ultimately, we want to govern ourselves as well as we possibly can, and doing so requires some attention to the qualities required to accomplish that task, as well as the qualities required to get elected.
Both change (the qualities required to get elected, and the qualities required to most effectively serve the public interest once elected), along with changing circumstances. And the choices we make, our efforts, are emphases, affect how those circumstances, and how those qualities, change, and how fast they change. Reality isn’t perfectly malleable
far from itbut it isn’t perfectly immalleable either (the premise which motivates progressives). The trick is to find the soft spots, and work with them to gradually soften (or indirectly affect) some of the harder ones.Jack, I have taught and worked with kids, from toddlers to undergrads, including high school and middle school students, as a teacher, a camp counselor, and a day care worker, and have generally been very popular and effective with them. The fact that I write long analytical posts on a political blog does not mean that I can’t connect with people, or that they would have to have a certain educational level for me to be able to connect with them.
In my youth, I worked in two sales jobs, one selling radio advertising spots by telephone, and one selling, yep, magazine subscriptions door-to-door, both of which require you to make people like you quickly enough and completely enough to buy things they don’t really need from you. I was very successful (though very unhappy) at both. It required exactly the skill that you’ve suggested, without knowing me, that I lack.
Currently, my biggest fan in the world has just a first grade education. She doesn’t think of me as being a wordy intellectual; she thinks of me as being a very funny and playful guy, who she turns to whenever she needs to have her spirits lifted. My high school students used to say such things as “you’re like everyone’s favorite uncle” (a direct quote). The truth is, we are multi-faceted, and those who know us in just one way, through one medium, tend to jump to conclusions that aren’t necessarily warranted.
I post here for the purpose of writing long analytical posts. There are plenty of people here linking to news stories, and offering quick commentaries, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that’s not why I’m here. Nor am I here to advance my campaign. I’m here in order to promote a social analytical orientation among a group of people interested in politics. This is not my campaign; this is not my whole life. This is participation in a particular forum, for a particular purpose.
and as noted by Bluecat, above, if she was that ignorant of the laws, or failed to consider the effects of her actions, her district may well be better served by someone else.
It was some of her Republican constiuents who persuaded her to leave the Democratic Party — and they are fueling her campaign for now to keep her illusion alive of winning a write-in election when the sole purpose is to split the Democratic vote. She’s been played all along.
Some local Dems do support her now, but by the election time, it may be a different story if it appears the seat will otherwise fall into Republican hands.
Kathleen will wake up Nov. 3 without a job and no friends from either party. The best political move for her to do is drop out of the race in order to salvage any future career. Like, who wants a sucker on their team?