Democratic Legislators: The Strong and the Not

6 thoughts on “Democratic Legislators: The Strong and the Not”

1. Notice that the “least effective Dems” are also the youngest.  So much for Michael Garcia’s idea to let 12 year olds into the legislature.  Yes, “An X-Box in every living-room”!  Now that’s a campaign promise.

   Log in to Reply

2. Joan as #1, yeah, I can see that. Forceful, driven, good staff, President of the Senate, duh.

   I don’t agree with Cerbo.  Curry should be in there before him.

   Also don’t agree with Gibbs in the bottom five.  He’s moving some difficult bills this session.  Maybe because he’s new he’s there.

   Completely agree with Garcia.  That guy is a strange one.  But not as strange as #1, McKinley. I love that guy.  He once told a lobbyist to sit on the west steps of the capitol and seranaded her while she tried to lobby him in between songs.

   Where’s Rommanofasaurus Rex?

   Log in to Reply

3. John Morse babay! 

   Log in to Reply

4. This is a worthless study because it is solely based on sponsorship or co-sponsorship, and passage rate. Clearly Gibbs is one of the most effective Democrats this session. To say otherwise based on an arbitrary study rather than an actual analysis of how much weight the bills that are being carried through have… doesn’t tell anything.

   Just because someones name is or isn’t on a bill doesn’t tell you anything about how much work they did to get the thing passed. This is especially true of the co-sponsor score. Anyone can jump on board a bill they see and like, but they certainly don’t have to even if they support it.

   Note: I know CC disclaimed their study as being based on only these factors and not more complex factors (such as if these bills passed unanimously or not). My beef is with their use of the words “effective” and “legislative success.” The only thing this study shows is who sponsored and co-sponsored the most bills that passed.

   Log in to Reply

   1. “Most effective” and “most visible” (co-sponsership of a bill being a form of visibility) are two very different things, in some ways and in some instances even opposites. There are many examples from literature (and from history!) of the archetype of the unassuming but highly effective person behind the scenes. To do this question justice would require a more in-depth analysis.

      Log in to Reply

5. This is so much garbage.  While the most effective are probably there due to seniority or in the case of Morse, the Dems desire to give him bills to make him look successful in the otherwise right wing El Paso County, the least effective have done some pretty notable and arguably effective things.  For instance–Michael Garcia carried HB1072–not his fault that the Gov broke his promise!  Paul Weissman is a bit of a contrarian, but may be the smartest–certainly the most experienced person in the House.  He has chosen to push issues that his colleagues don’t dare–like abolishing the death penalty and he raises issues that others don’t want to talk about for fear that the R’s and sometimes even the D’s might upset the apple cart.  Wes McKinley carried the bill to stop the expansion of Pinon Canyon and did so in the face of opposition of all of the business community.  It is an important issue to his constituents and he was very successful.  There is no doubt that Ed Casso, Dan Gibbs, and Andy Kerr are all smart legislators who are effective and respected by their colleagues for their ability to get things done.

   A better measure of effectiveness, if one could actually find one, might be what their colleagues–on both sides think of them and their ability to get things done, move opinions, shape legislation, kill bad bills from the other side, garner votes from colleagues, work on their side of the aisle and across the aisle, etc.

   Once again, a dumb list based on poor measures of what it means to be effective.

   Log in to Reply