U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 28, 2008 04:11 AM UTC

Rayburn's Not So Super Tuesday?

  • 57 Comments
  • by: GOPpundit

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Bentley Rayburn has a big problem. In years past perhaps a candidate could skip the Caucuses and get nothing more than a few dirty looks. Bentley Rayburn came out swinging (and missing) when, while addressing precinct committee people and the rest of the Republican Central Committee in El Paso County in December, he spoke against Caucuses and tried to make a case for the petition process. (That was the wrong crowd dude).

Now the El Paso County Executive committee has said that no candidate ducking the Caucus process will be able to distribute literature at the Caucuses or speak at the County Assembly in front of the nearly 3,000 attendees. While at the county headquarters I saw the statement campaigns had to sign and of course, being the intrepid information guy that I am, I grabbed one of the forms which said, in part:

“I am agreeing to abide by the resolution passed by the El Paso County Executive Committee that only those campaigns that seek office through the grassroots Caucus and Assembly process will be permitted to pass out material via the Caucus Process.”

I asked the staff at the GOP office point blank which of the three candidates for 5th CD has signed the form… only one – Jeff Crank. How weak are Rayburn and Lamborn if they do not believe they can get the requisite 15% of the delegates needed to get on the ballot?

As I said before, in years past perhaps a candidate could duck the Caucus and only get a few dirty looks. This year will be a huge year for the Caucuses in Colorado. According to people I know who sit on the County Party Executive Committee there is a significant amount of money being spent to drive attendance up – and that’s in addition to the extra attention that the Presidential Poll is generating.  On what is likely going to be the biggest turnout in Colorado history, Rayburn is basically turning his back on thousands of key grassroots people?

From the El Paso County GOP web blog:

Caucus Versus Petition:

Why should a candidate bother with participating in the Caucus/Assembly/Primary process? The alternative is to petition onto a Colorado ballot… candidates can petition for many offices with as little as 1000 signatures.

   * While a petition of 1000 signatures could all come from just one or two precincts and neighborhood, candidates in the Caucus/Assembly process must reach out to a much larger geographic and demographic group of people. This means more people at the grassroots level are involved in the selection of the candidate.

   * The Assembly process is structured to allow only candidates with more than 10% support at the Assembly to continue into the Primary. This personal, grassroots structure enables a healthy Primary debate on the substantive differences among just a few candidates instead of a crowded field.

   * Participants in the Caucus/Assembly process are proactive, engaged individuals. On the other hand, signatures on a petition can be collected from people who may not even be regular voters or care much about one candidate over another.

   * The final point also relates to the participants of the Caucus. These proactive, engaged individuals are also often the backbone of local grassroots efforts on behalf of various candidates. Whether someone is running for a local legislative seat or a national congressional seat – this grassroots support is often critical to their success.

Does Rayburn have an answer to this? What will the fallout be, given the probably increase in Caucus-goers?

Rayburn has not said for sure that he will not go through the caucus system so perhaps this is all for nothing but it seems extremely weird that he refuses to commit.

Tweet
Share

Comments

57 thoughts on “Rayburn’s Not So Super Tuesday?”

  1. This is the same tedious technical garbage that the Crankers have been pushing for months.  But I guess this is all they have, so props for effort.

    The truth is that Lamborn and Rayburn both realize that the El Paso Exec is stacked for Crank and continues to play games with the their campaigns.  

    Besides, Colorado is only one of 11 states that still use the outdated caucus system.  A system that excludes anybody who can not be present, namely soldiers and students.  Both perhaps the most important and promising demographics in the party. The Caucus is unrepresentative and dominated by a handful of stuffy elites who by their very nature discourage attendance.  Before you get all upset and say I don’t know what I am talking about keep in mind that I am a precinct chair and former delegate.  I know exactly what I am talking about.

    The El Paso exec is relentlessly promoting an outdated system as part of their campaign to engage new voters and supporters…Soldiers and Students.  The very people the system excludes.  Five bucks to whoever finds the paradox.  

          1. Petitions exclude out of state students and military.  They cannot sign if they are not present when the petitions are being circulated.  However, out of state students and military can participate in the caucuses without being physically present, as has been explained accurately by others.

    2. it is being pushed by the state GOP.  There are many reasons caucuses are a good idea, not the least of which is that it largely takes money out of the equation.  In a caucus system, you can not simply buy votes which is what bothers Rayburn.

      Also of interest is your disenfranchisement argument.  What I find particularly amusing about it is that you don’t understand military voting patterns even though your boss has already been involved in a scandal because of it.  Military members are not disenfranchised because of the caucus system, rather they are not registered here because of the tax implications.  Like I said, your boss knows this all too well which is why I find it funny that you are pushing this argument.  

      If Bentley Rayburn really wanted to give military a say in local politics, he would run for HD-15 and eliminate state tax for military members.  He knows why military don’t vote here, but he is trying to leverage a non-issue as an excuse to duck the caucuses.

      1. The article says this resulotion was passed by the El Paso County Executive Committee, not the state.

        It sounds to me like Crank and his EPC buddies Kyle Fisk and Greg Garcia are trying to bully Rayburn around.

        Kudos to Lamborn and Rayburn for not signing this form. Garcia, Fisk and the rest of the El Paso County Executive Committee are making themselves seem small and petty.

        1. If you have a problem with the leadership than get involved. Virtually all the officers and a bunch of the excutive committee in El Paso County are anything but the “old guard” of the party… Most have only been involved about as long as, gosh, Bentley Rayburn.

          If you question that or want to find out more information I would recommend taking 20 minutes and calling Garcia or Fisk and finding out for yourself why they are doing what they are doing. I took a couple of hours talking to them and found it extremely refreshing.

          But hey – that’s just my perspective.

          1. I am not whining, just merely pointing out the facts.  I have spoken to Garcia and Fisk, and they tell me one thing and then do another.  So I imagine talking with them would be very refreshing for a Crank supporter.  Since most of what they do benifits your camp.

      2. We currently have two members who have been activated and are serving on active duty and will be away from the state on February 5.  Neither will be able to participate in the caucus system and help select their next commander in chief.  And look at any and all the students who are going to school out of state.  They can’t play either.

        The best solution would be for the legislature to move us out of the antiquated caucus system and into line with the rest of the country where soldiers and students can vote for their party nominees.

        Maybe the Colorado Springs GOP delegation to the legislature should advocate on behalf of the missing soldiers and students.

           

        1. Who said military members or students are disqualified for participating? THEY’RE NOT… at a Caucus anyone whose legal residence is in the Precinct can be nominated for a Delegate or Alternate position… so both STUDENTS and MILITARY members are definitely not disenfranchised

            1. You can have a friend or a family member show up and nominate you at your caucus. Any neighbor… a soldier or student could even contact his/her current precinct committee-person and have them nominate them. They could have a letter read at Caucus on their behalf. They cannot be physically present but they can be nominated and elected to ANY of the positions.

            2. I was in a caucus training last week.  Active military members can participate in the caucus process via e-mail contact with the county party.

              Students can participate if they simply change their address in time.

              If you think the caucus system is outdated or isn’t a good system, you don’t understand the system.  Just because it doesn’t work for your candidate doesn’t mean it doesn’t work

              1. Definition of ‘caucus’: “a meeting of party members within a legislative body to select leaders and determine strategy.” Alternative definition: “discussion.”

                You assume, rather sadly, that the only interest someone would have in a caucus is to nominate himself or herself, or to have his or her email read to others. But isn’t a central part of the caucus system the give-and-take, debate, discussion? (Or at least isn’t that what it’s SUPPOSED to be for the system to make any real sense?)

                Plus, how can you realistically say there’s any comparison between someone “mailing it in” to a caucus and someone actually BEING THERE? If you’re not there, no one can actually see or hear from you. It’s just not the same. (Or if you maintain it is, why not allow EVERYONE to participate by email and save us a lot of trouble and time?)

                So, people who can’t attend the caucus are effectively disenfranchised from full, true participation. Sure, they can have someone else nominate them, but that’s a rather greedy, opportunistic view of what the caucus system is supposed to be all about.

                So I think gopstudent has a good point (and I want some of that five bucks!).

                1. Whether someone could vote.  The answer to that is yes.  As such, students and members of the military can participate.

                  A couple other things you sadly refuse to acknowledge.

                  One-students can participate if they do the few simple things that would enable them to vote-they simply must change their address of registration.  Done.  They can then participate.  This argument that they can’t participate because they’re not at their home address is like saying “cacauses keep people from participating because they have to leave their houses”.  With a little bit of effort, they can participate.

                  Second off, the purpose of the caucuses are to designate delegates to various conventions.  Stretch that meaning to what you will, but the discussion during the meeting is “who are you voting for?”  You would know that if you actually attended-not by looking things up in the dictionary.

                  Plus, the argument could be made that participating in the political process at that level would violate active duty military members strict “A-political” policy.  And yet, there is still a way for them to participate.  

                  So, let’s review.  Students can participate with a little bit of effort.  Active duty members of the military can too.  And with the caucus system, you don’t have to worry about ballots not getting in one time and the such which has gotten military votes challenged/thrown out in the past.

                  Sorry, your arguments simply don’t hold up to the facts.  

                  1. A Democrat in Denver County cannot vote unless they are present.

                    A person can send a letter requesting to be considered as a delegate if they can not be there, but they cannot vote on anything.

              1. Is truly staggering. No one is being denied the right to vote.  I don’t know how else to explain it.  If you don’t get it by now, you’re trying to not understand

                1. There are no provisions in the rules of the State Democratic Party that allow for overseas military citizens to vote in the caucus; they may become a delegate by proxy notification – which means they have to return by the date of the County Assembly/Convention.

                  I don’t know whether that holds for the Republicans or not, but it’s certainly true on the D side.

                  1. if you’re elected delegate to the county assembly and you don’t show, they have elected alternates from each precinct who can attend the assembly and be moved to a delegate position if a delegate from that precinct is a no-show.

        1. Not much new has been going on in CD5 so I have been paying more attention to Dick Morris and Fox more lately.  I figure that when things heat up again around fundraising it will become interesting again in this race.

    3. I agree that there is room for improvement… so be part of the solution! Invite a friend – or 70 – to participate in the Caucus. If we can all reach out and engage more people than this thing actually does work.

      Stacked for Crank? Bullshit. How is that even possible? The only way it’s possible is if Crank somehow is able to convince more of his supporters to show up on Caucus night. It’s like any other event or voting day… you build an organization and then mobilize as many supporters as you can. If any candidate thinks they will win without an organized and assertive effort they are sorely mistaken. There are precisely ZERO people that automatically get chosen as Delegates and Alternates to the 5th Congressional Assembly. The slate gets wiped clean every two years enabling anyone who wants to compete an equal chance to do so. Rayburn has had nearly three years to work with this community building friends and alliances to compete in the Caucuses. I actually think that with a little effort he could easily get the Delegates needed to move on from the Assembly to the Primary.

        1. In what ways has the party been jerkin’ the Rayburn folks around?

          All snark aside-again, you keep saying these things but you don’t offer any examples.  It would be really helpful if you did.

          1. 1. They refuse to return phone calls- especially Nathan Fisk.

            2. They would not cooperate with the campaign when the time came to stuff precinct packets, and even diliberately refused to accept materials or return calls informing the campaign when they could bring by materials to be stuffed.

            3. They have not cooperated with precinct people known to be for Rayburn.  Mostly they would not provide them with walking lists in a timely manner or at all.

            4. In general, they have been reluctant to supply the campaign with information.

            Here is a start.  There is more, and I believe it will be officially released soon.

            1. 1. They refuse to return phone calls- especially Nathan Fisk.

              I receive upwards of 50-60 calls per day and either I or staff at the County headquarters return calls in a prompt manner or respond via email. This is documented and anyone who wishes to visit us at headquarters is welcome to see for themselves. I am not saying that mistakes are never made; I am saying that we act in a fair and decent manner towards every campaign and every individual we serve.

              2. They would not cooperate with the campaign when the time came to stuff precinct packets, and even diliberately refused to accept materials or return calls informing the campaign when they could bring by materials to be stuffed.

              This is blatantly not true. Every campaign was notified by email or by phone on the same day as to when we would be open for the stuffing of the Campaign Literature envelope that is distributed to all the Caucus locations. (A supporter of one of the 5th CD candidates has actually been to our office and asked to see evidence of this which was immediately provided.)

              3. They have not cooperated with precinct people known to be for Rayburn.  Mostly they would not provide them with walking lists in a timely manner or at all.

              Again, this is not true. First, we do not have any method for tracking which Pct Committee People are for/against any particular candidate. Quite honestly, we have better things to do with our time. We keep a log of every request that comes in and when it is fulfilled. Again, this is open for inspection by a campaign if they feel there has been impropriety.


              4. In general, they have been reluctant to supply the campaign with information.

              I do not know who gopstudent is but I would respectfully ask that he/she come sit down and chat with me. The statement above is again untrue. Given the history of this office in election cycles from years past we have taken GREAT care to be partial to no one. We respond with the utmost alacrity to every request and will continue to do so. I have personally spoken with every candidate for the 5th CD and I believe that they all even have my personal cell phone number. If anyone thinks there is a problem, please let me know so that I can solve it.

              Nathan Fisk

              Executive Director

              El Paso County Republicans

              execdir@gopelpaso.com

              http://www.gopelpaso.com

              1. Not only should gopstudent contact you, but the Rayburn campaign should contact you so they can clear this up with their disgruntled campaign staff and volunteers.

                And, if you don’t hear from gopstudent as well as the campaign, I think you can rest assured that you have done nothing wrong.

                There’s not much more you can do other than, maybe, contact all three campaigns, perhaps in a face-to-face meeting or conference call to ascertain which campaign feels agrieved, which would give you an opportunity to reiterate how your office handles requests, and phone and e-mail messages.

    4. Who said military members or students are disqualified for participating? THEY’RE NOT… at a Caucus anyone whose legal residence is in the Precinct can be nominated for a Delegate or Alternate position… so both STUDENTS and MILITARY members are definitely not disenfranchised.

    5. After he was one of the 3 No votes to Federally outlaw dog fighting, he kind of lost me.  What say you disenfranchised Republican student?

      Dude, why can’t you go to the caucus and support your boss?  Do you have class at 7 pm on a Tuesday night?  I didn’t know that Colorado College was so rigorous!

      1. I plan to be at the caucus.

        I hear online degrees are a lot cheaper and you don’t even have class, that must have been great! Call me old fashioned, but I enjoy getting to learn from professors in person. 🙂

          1. The question isn’t “is it the same experience”, it’s can they participate.  The answer is a resounding “yes”.

            Just because you don’t like the system doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

            Having lived in many states and having seen many systems, Colorado’s is great.

          2. If I could get away with sending an e-mail I’d do it in a heartbeat!!! I have found the art of delegating tasks to be a great thing. I like to vote in person on election day, but I don’t have the same feelings about caucusing.

            And mainly I just find all of this bickering between the CD-5 candidates and their bloggers to be quite humorous. I mean how do you all have SOOO much time on your hands?

      2. I never said I could not go to the caucus, I am an in-state student and am one of the fortunate few who will be in their precincts to cauacus and fully participate.  The problem is that the caucus discourages youth/students and military participation.  

        And Rayburn is not my boss.

    6. Because the GOP was so busy trying to bankrupt the state that we had to abandon our Presidential primary to save cash.

      If you don’t like the shortcomings of the system, I’d suggest contemplating your navel for a while on the subject of realistic funding of vital government services.

  2. Military members are by federal law disenfranchised.  It’s a sad but necessary part of their job, and it has to do with maintaining civilian control of the military.  I find it a sad sacrifice for servicemen and women to make, but I can see why it is necessary.

    For instance, military can not donate money to partisan political candidates.  Congress has decided that it is in national interest to disenfranchise military from functioning in any part of the electoral process except for simply casting a ballot.  

    On a second point, military law states that Active Duty service members are not allowed to speak before partisan political gatherings.  This means that their participation in a caucus would essentially be as a passive voting participant even if they were physically present. So in either a primary or caucus system, military members are relegated by law to only vote and have no further participation.

    So for all of you out there griping about lack of military involvement, in reality the only thing you could do is change the Colorado law exempting military state tax so that people like Bentley Rayburn would register to vote in Colorado.  As Haners pointed out, all military are able to vote in caucuses already.  The reason they don’t is the reason that Rayburn didn’t for many years: it would have cost him tens of thousands of dollars in state tax to do so.

  3. Another thing I find amusing about the recent CD5 spat is the notion that Jeff Crank controls the Central Committee.  If I recall correctly, not only are Bentley Rayburn and his wife both on the CC, didn’t they receive more votes than any of the other CC members?  And if Bentley Rayburn is running as a “leader” and he received so many votes, why does he not start leading within the CC and El Paso GOP.  Furthermore, there were people from all the campaigns on the CC slate that was elected.  So shouldn’t Rayburn be the logical leader of that group since he is the general and received more votes than anyone else?  If after receiving so many votes, he does not have the leadership to make his case to the other CC members, how the heck is he going to persuade other Congressmen to go along with him when he is from an obscure Colorado district?

    The argument here is absurd.  Let’s just be honest.  Rayburn can not win at the Assembly, but he wants to run so bad that he is willing to virtually hand Lamborn a second term by making this a 3 way race.

  4. I will be recommending to Doug Lamborn that he bypass the assembly and petition onto the ballot.

    I think he should have a joint news conference with Bentley Rayburn and make the announcement together.

    That way while Crank has stacked the process, he will end up with, well, nothing.  

    Which is what insider heir/lobbyists deserve.

  5. Petitioning on is a perfectly legal and valid way to get onto the ballot.  Having to sign a document saying you will go through the caucuses is unprecedented and very heavy handed by the GOP leadership.  Rayburn and Lamborn should NOT sign that document based on principle alone.  

    1. I agree, Rayburn and Lamborn should both openly and publically oppose the caucus system.  Signing a document saying you will go through the caucus is just signing away your campaign to the bias scrutiny of the party establishment.  

      This same Colorado party establishment can be noted for pulling tricks during both the 2004 and 2006 State Conventions first with Shaffer’s contest with Pete Coors, then again with the gubernatorial contest between Beauprez and Hotlzman.

      If we want to continue to allow a few party elites to coronate their candidate of choice then please, Rayburn and Lamborn, sign up.  But if you truly believe the Republicans in your district deserve an unbiased contest, stand up against the corrupt caucus system.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

93 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!