Aspiring candidates be advised there are a few prerequisite steps before you send out campaign literature.
Step 1: Make sure everything’s spelled correctly. Step 2: Make sure the supporters listed are actually supporting you.
Simple enough, right? Well, as reported in the North Denver News http://tiny.cc/66xve apparently a group of people in House District 4 weren’t afforded the courtesy of a phone call before their names appeared on a campaign mailer for Amber Tafoya touting her endorsements in the Democratic primary. We were just forwarded an angry email signed by four activists demanding an apology and retraction from Tafoya, and clearing the air that they-well, at least three of them– are supporting Dan Pabon for the seat being vacated by term-limited Jerry Frangas.
The fourth signer is Vivian Stovall, a familiar name to many readers of this blog, who is none too pleased that someone is falsely assuming she’s supporting anyone in the primary while she’s a party officer. Suffice it to say, you generally don’t want to be on Vivian’s bad side, as we’re sure Tafoya is learning today.
One could debate if the potential fallout from such an elementary mistake actually does much damage (presuming more people read the mail piece than hear about the letter). But it has to rock a campaign in a week, when ballots are actually in people’s hands, that they have to publicly acknowledge people are actively supporting an opponent or risk further outrage over an error that was obviously their own fault. Plus, it must be a little disheartening to know that the donor money invested in an expensive mailer just landed across the district with a resounding thud.
The letter is printed after the jump.
Dear Amber,
We recently learned that you listed the four of us on a mail piece and with the Denver Post online candidate guide as persons endorsing your candidacy for House District 4. We have NOT endorsed you.
Vivian Stovall is an officer of the State Democratic Party and she takes her duties and responsibilities very seriously. One of her duties is to refrain from endorsing candidates in a Democratic primary. Your endorsement piece is a de-facto allegation that she broke State Party rules. A simple phone call to Vivian would have confirmed that she is not endorsing you and that you should not use her name in association with your campaign.
Judy Martinez-Sarricchio, Rudy Gonzalez, and LeRoy Lemos each supported you prior to the caucus but as they told you directly, they have since endorsed Dan Pabon. These three prominent figures in West and North Denver take their endorsements very seriously. Again, a simple phone call or e-mail asking each person whether you could use these names would not only be the courteous thing to do, but is expected for a race of this caliber. The undersigned are not a part of your inner-circle, however, we expect you to reach outside those closest to you to find out where we stand on this race.
As our names have been used in a mailer, we respectfully ask that you send a clarification to those voters that received your mail-piece that we have not endorsed you. We leave it to you to describe in your clarification whether this printing was an inadvertent error or intentional. [emphasis added]
Regards,
s/ Rudy Gonzalez, LeRoy Lemos, Judy Martinez-Sarricchio, and Vivian Stovall
cc: Pat Waak, Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party
Vivian Stovall
Rudy Gonzalez
Judy Martinez-Sarricchio
Jennifer Coken
Dan Pabon
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Who’s Paying For These Racist Anti-Harris Sign Stunts?
BY: davebarnes
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: Colorado Pols
IN: Who’s Paying For These Racist Anti-Harris Sign Stunts?
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
not a great way to close out your campaign…
Stuff happens. Not all of it is really all that relevant. This was a mistake on her (or her campaign’s) part, to be sure, but not a malicious one or a terribly consequential one. Jennifer, Dan, and Amber are all excellent candidates; the folks in HD 4 can choose from among them on their respective merits without giving a lot of weight to a minor campaign flub.
You can dismiss this as minor if you want, but if endorsements didn’t matter, why put out an endorsement piece? If they do matter, then you better make sure they are accurate (if you believe it is an honest mistake). I don’t know that it was an honest mistake when three influential people apparently told her directly that they are supporting Pabon and the fourth never made an endorsement???
I know Andrea Merida is advising Tafoya, maybe some of her ethics are rubbing off?
I don’t. There’s nothing any of us can do to prevent the kind of tactics you’re using, except to hope that the good judgment of others will see through the gutter-politics attempt to smear one candidate by a tenuous association to another. The significance of the endorsement mistake is open to debate; the significance of one Denver area Democratic candidate “taking advice from” (whatever that means) another Denver area Democrat in office isn’t; it’s completely meaningless.
I live in the house district and am disturbed by the tactic as well as your charaterization of “gutter-politics.” Sure you aren’t an “interested party?” I think thou doth protest too much.
As for “tenuous association”, Merida is pictured in the same endorsement piece at issue. My point was, I am not willing to give Tafoya a free pass given Merida’s involvement.
When you consider Merida’s antics on the school board and her recent ethical issues with the Romanoff campaign, including several influential people on an endorsement piece who actually don’t endorse you isn’t beyond the rhelm of possibility. That is of course if you don’t buy the “simply mistake line” which, I am not sure I do.
My only interest is in seeing none of them unfairly smeared.
I’m a bit of an idealist: I believe that we can and should focus on issues, on personal qualifications and experience, and on keeping the process as clean and functional as possible. There is little doubt in my mind that your attempt to exploit these two perceived vulnerabilities of Amber’s serves another purpose and philosophy altogether.
I think you would agree that a candidate’s judgement is an important component of a person’s qualifications and experience?
I conceed that we disagree as to whether this endorsement issue reflects poor judgement.
and of how it happened. I just don’t consider it a major issue.