CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 28, 2015 02:39 PM UTC
35 Comments
Did he win by 46 votes? 😉
Good one.
He only won by 14 votes
I've been totally disconnected from this process, but I don't personally think Palacio did a bad job last year. Colorado did better than a lot of states in a GOP wave year, and I don't hold Palacio responsible for Udall's campaign mistakes. I've heard about this delegate wrangling stuff, but did any of it break any rules?
I'm just asking, NOT starting a fight! 🙂 I'm curious what others think.
He didn't do such a bad job. In the face of a GOP wave of epic proportion, the Democratic governor was re-elected running against a well-funded establishment-type Republican masquerading as a tea bagger and running a scare campaign, the three incumbent U.S. House Dems were re-elected (although we did not take one of the GOP seats we targeted), we kept the state House but we lost the state Senate albeit by only one seat changing.
The biggest loss was Udall's seat. I don't recall hearing that Palacio was running the ad campaign for Udall. I hold responsible the geniuses who thought a winning strategy was having the words "reproductive" and "choice" as being two out of every three words that came out Udall's month during the campaign.
Agree. Still, got to admit Elliot's joke is a good one.
yes, the irony would be rich. I'm confused. Someone posted he won by 14 votes. I read last night it was substantially more. Anyone have the exact breakdown amongst the three.
Palacio – 248
Sabatos – 182
Meyers – 38
And it only took 3 ballots to get there! Vote early, vote often! Al C would be proud!
But that's more than 14 votes. Someone posted that he only won by 14 votes.
More importantly, it's more than 46 votes.
Frank, it takes 50% +1 to win. If you subtract 46 votes from the Chairman's total, he received 202 votes.
Palacio- 202
Sabatos- 182
Meyers- 38
Total votes= 422
Palacio= 47.9% wouldn't have won on that vote without his appointees.
Palacio – 248
Sabatos – 182
Meyers – 38
Sabados, sorry about that.
You are assuming that all 46 voted for Palacio, when in fact two of the 46 were Sabados and Meyers.
I thought seating the appointed 46 was that they had to vote for Palacio. He actually appointed members who voted for his opponents?
I think it's safe to assume that he assumed enough of them would. Otherwise, why resort to something not at all customary even if not against the rules? It certainly implies a calculation that any negative fall out would be worth it. That's the kind of thing pols do; use whatever they can.
No one should be shocked. Nothing illegal here. Neither should anyone feel the need to pretend his motives were pure as the driven snow nor be offended by those who take a more cynical view. And of course it's so inside baseball, who cares besides a handful of political junkies like us?
Got it…..thanks
That just means Palacio and Chickenpooper cut a deal with the opposition- they get the Senate seat, we get the guv. The kind of politics they play, they're not above throwing anyone under the bus. Besides, there was talk right after the election of how a Senate minority somehow helps Hilary. It's all one hand washes the other. They're all after bigger and better things. It's pretty obvious, since the only thing that matters to these people is what's happening on a national level.
As for the delegate stuff, it wasn't against the rules. I think some folks see it more as an unseemly, oddly-timed, and intensely self-serving enforcement of rules that had been more loosely followed previously.
Yup. Didn't look good. Will be interesting to see if he can repair the damage.
He wants to move on to bigger and better things. We're just his stepping stone, so why doesn't he just move on? He's already part of the inner sanctum of the DNC anyway.
I think the thing that most do not realize is that Sabados is the the one that sent out the email bringing up the gender inequality issue, not Palacio. So Palacio had to address it. Also, he picked Sabados and Meyers for two of those spots.
That isn't what the article about the additions seems to say. While I'd be happy to see the letter Sabados sent, he seemed to be surprised that the change was made before the election, as noted in the DP story. So why not hold off appointing new members until what was a pretty close election without them was completed? I'm not seeing how the deck didn't get stacked or why Palacio had to make an incredibly self serving set of appointments (he didn't win by much without them) before, rather than after, the election.
(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27612116/colorado-democratic-party-chair-election-turmoil-after-directive)
Vic Meyers only got 9% of the central committee vote? He did better in the general election last fall running against Ken Buck.
That's a lot of adjectives modifying the fact that it wasn't against the rules. So not techinically wrong, just kind of sleazy?
At least Palacio won by more than 46 votes….. 🙂
I figured.
He only won by 14 votes. The rest of us minions don't matter. That is, until you need someone to do gruntwork in the next election. Don't come crying to us when you need help. Of course, you'll probably just pay for the enlightened society kids from back east to come here and dictate to us what we should be caring about. Obviously, you don't need us unless we have money and noteriety to offer a certain number of quid pro quos that allow us to be a member of the club. But then, we're just too naive to believe it's about the greater good. We're supposed to worship those who will go to whatever level of sleaze to get what they want.
Gee, and why don't Dems get elected?
Sounds like those last minute 46 came in handy.
No confidence in Palacio, who had to stuff the ballot box to win (legit or not, it stinks).
Serious concerns about monetary issues with his compensation.
Serious concerns about party messaging in the elections and the recall efforts.
Now we are left trying to support a party whose leader in whom many have no faith. As a PCP for the Dems, I'm feeling quite at a loss. I believe in lots of Democratic principles, but I'm unconvinced that party leaders (and some elected Democrats) do.
The really tough part is going to be finding the heart to support Bennet after his Keystone votes. I don't know who he is representing but it is going to be difficult to believe he is diligently working to promote Democratic values and ideas.
not just difficult to me, GG. …impossible…
"We don't have emperors yet, but one of our two major parties is now dominated by radicals engaged in a crusade of voter suppression aimed at the elderly, the young, minorities and the poor; while the other party, once the champion of everyday working people, has been so enfeebled by its own collaboration with the donor class that it offers only token resistance to the forces that have DEMORALIZED EVERYDAY AMERICANS" Bill Moyers
Like!
From the outside looking in this entire thing stinks to high heaven. Palacio rigged the game in the days before the election and only through that rigging was he able to win on the first ballot. Sort of brings to mind the FDR court packing plan of the 30s
But wil anyone but a few political junkies care? Highly unlikely.