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
August 05, 2015 12:46 PM UTC

Strong Democratic Challenge Sets Up In Key State Senate Race

  • 27 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Las Animas County Sheriff Jim Casias (D).
Las Animas County Sheriff Jim Casias (D).

The Denver Post’s John Frank reports–after a heartbreaking narrow loss in 2012, Democrats are once again hopeful for a shot at picking up GOP Sen. Larry Crowder’s SD-35 seat with a strong new challenger–Las Animas County Sheriff Jim Casias:

The Democratic sheriff is a top recruit in the party’s plans to regain power in the Senate, where Republicans took a one-seat majority in the 2014 elections and served as a blockade for numerous bills backed by the Democratic House and Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Casias, 67, is one of the 55 sheriffs who filed suit against Hickenlooper in 2013 to fight tougher gun control laws, among those dubbed “heroes” by a conservative website. He also served as president of the County Sheriffs of Colorado Association in 2014…

To further distance himself from Denver, Casias is likely to make his challenge of the gun laws a prominent point in his campaign. He supports a repeal of the large ammunition magazine restrictions but supports background checks, Short said. [Pols emphasis]

In 2012, Larry Crowder unexpectedly defeated Democrat Crestina Martinez for this seat, which became highly competitive following legislative reapportionment the previous year. Martinez’s defeat led to a long period of introspection for Democrats in southern Colorado, a process that continues to this day as former strongholds like Pueblo adapt to changing politics in Denver–and Denver Democrats re-evaluate their message to better appeal to their base in other parts of the state.

Casias arguably represents the product of that new strategy–a well-known candidate with deep ties to the community who also has a demonstrable independent streak. Like Sen. Kerry Donovan on the Western Slope, Casias has a nuanced position on the 2013 gun laws that will appeal to voters who dislike them–in particular the much-maligned magazine limit law–while at the same time defending the universal gun background checks that were always the highest priority.

As for Crowder, his four years in the Senate have produced a number of liabilities that a strong opponent can exploit, including voting against rural broadband, affordable housing, and senior services–and above all voting to mess with retirement benefits for the significant number of PERA retirees in this district.

All of which adds up to a potent challenge from Democrats, in a competitive race key to retaking the Colorado Senate in 2016.

Tweet
Share

Comments

27 thoughts on “Strong Democratic Challenge Sets Up In Key State Senate Race”

    1. Please show us legislation that calls for taking people's guns away. Alternatively please stop referring to gun grabbing  a gun grabbing record or any gun grabbing laws.Your tiny edge in one house of the state legislature  for the first time in several cycles makes crowing about Dems running scared from anything a little premature.

      1. Yep – voting GOP gets you a true Militia Patriot while voting for this Dem gets you Militia Patriot-Lite … and when you get down to it, when you're in the fox hole fighting against the second coming of Hitler, can you trust Militia Patriot-Lite to get the job done?

        That's a rhetorical question, of course – the answer is, hell no! 

        The only person you can trust these days is Dudley Brown – a Super Duper Militia Patriot on Steroids!

        Dudley's slate of candidates are the true Militia Party.

        Go Dudley!

        That’s sarcasm, of course.

  2. This will probably work for Casias. It worked for Leroy Garcia in Pueblo. The gun magazine limit was never the hill to die on, although the background check requirement is.

    Larry Crowder is a heckuva nice guy, but his constituents deserve someone who looks after their interests better.

    1. Perhaps it's not a "hill to die on", but we've seen several instances where gun magazine capacity has been a factor in the ability (or inability) of other people to fight back or escape. It's not something we should sacrifice now that it's law.

      Casias will likely get points for this in his district; let's win a couple more seats so that we don't see a Senate controlled by Democrats that tries to repeal it.

    2. Cliven Bundy's militia could all pass a background check. Do we really want the militia movement to have so much firepower that any yahoo who owes $1 million to the Feds, or who wants to pry open Federal lands, can simply call on a militia to show up, face down the feds … and win?

      Bundy and his types don't believe in the sovereignty of the Federal government. 

      As the gun extremists like to say – the Second Amendment is there to protect against tyranny. And one man's "tyranny" is another's lawful Constitutionally run republic. 

      This isn't about the freedom to fire off 30+ rounds at the range … it's about arming militias.

  3. The magazine limit is in state what Keystone was nationally.

    Since we (gun safety folks and environmentalists) have allies at the top of the executive branch, we treat these as what those in a parliamentary system call a "free" vote.

    For Dems in conservative states or districts, we give them a pass on voting for these bills since each bill will die as a result of a veto. (Obama did veto Keystone and Hick would probably veto any change to the magazine limit.)

    Meanwhile, they get to appease their constituents and claim to be "independent Dems" or "moderate Dems" or "Blue Dogs" or whatever they care to call themselves. They just need to get re-elected and then install Dem leadership and committee chairs.

    I know, it's all a little cynical……but so what?

    1. Cynical?  That's why you're Frank!

      I completely agree and wish others would recognize when votes matter and when they don't (see, for example: Michael Bennet).

    2. It's the way it's always worked. Any Dem will do for the head count that determines a majority.  As long as there are votes to spare for whatever the party majority wants to do, those who need to vote against that majority have always been free to do so if they need to for political reasons in their constituency. It's why the mantra about judging each candidate individually is crap. Every individual from the other party helps that party reach a majority or do things like sustain a filibuster or over-ride a veto. The less of them the better. That's why, while there is barely any such thing as a moderate R who is a superior person running for office anymore, if there were it would still be better to vote for a Dem rock to block or reduce R power. I'm sure this guy isn't my kind of Dem but, just by having a pulse, he's the best option.

      1. Thank you. I was going to come on to sigh that FauxDems are all too common down here in SE Colorado, but your point about playing the numbers game is sensible. Although sad.

    3. Frank wrote: “since we (gun safety folks and environmentalists) have……..” Protection of the environment; including safeguarding our public lands; is its own issue and has nothing at all to do with gun safety or "gun grabbing" except inasmuch as gun safety is an important part of legal hunting. 

      Also, protection of the environment is non-partisan and not a progressive issue. We all want and need to breath clean air and drink clean water regardless of party affiliation.  

      1. The last time I checked, the non-partisan aspect of environmentalism has checked out. The Republican Party is rarely for environmental conservatism of any sort these days. By and large, the remaining elected officials in the party are all for rolling back EPA, Clean Air, and Clean Water regulations. Republicans mostly deny that global climate change is a Thing – because it hurts the bottom lines of their campaign financiers.

        Nevermind that government regulators – and budget calculations – have been overly generous in turning a blind eye toward the environmental and health costs of doing business. If we were to stop subsidizing mature profitable businesses like the fossil fuel industry and instead tax them for the health, environmental, and government expenses that they generate, perhaps we'd be a lot further along toward clean sustainable energy…

        1. Phoenix: pay a visit to web sites for Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste for a conservative approach to budgets. I think it's TCS that has railed against subsidies for the energy industry. 

          1. That's as far as "conservative" goes, though. I know Rand Paul isn't a big fan of subsidies, either. But neither is he interested in admitting the true costs of the environmental damage we've done and continue to do. Generally, conservative groups against subsidies are also against regulation.

  4. So, in other words, he supports the militia movement's right to have 30+ round ammunition clips. Those are the ones fighting the hardest to get the limits repealed across the country. 

    Great, maybe the NE Colorado secessionists can invite Cliven Bundy's militia to show up with their high capacity AR-15s in sync with the GOP's push to take Federal lands and put them in state hands as a means to do an end around Federal regulations.

    Fantastic. 

     

    1. More Dems, even a couple loony ones, give Dems more power. If a couple of loonies   give Dems a majority the all loony Republicans lose the driver's seat.

  6. mamajama wrote: "his constituents deserve someone who looks after their interests better……."

    Senator Crowder looked after his constituents quite nicely; especially ranchers; when he broke with the Republican caucus and joined the 17 Dems in killing SB 232 on the Senate floor. That was the bill to create a commission to study state takeover of federal lands. Crowder took a lot of heat in the caucus for that vote.

    According to Conservation Colorado's legislative scorecard for 2015, Crowder had a 40% score, tied for best among the Republicans. Eight of 17 R senators had scores of 10% or 0%. So, let's give some credit where it's due.   C.H.B.

    1. Crowder deserves cheers for some of his conservation votes, including supporting the development of a wind power plant in Huerfano County.

      However, he hasn't helped Lamar deal with its nonfunctional power plant woes, and he has recently made a baffling turnaround on privatizing PERA, which has pissed off his district's elderly and retired / retiring voters.  So he gets plenty of jeers, too.

      Unfortunately, he hasn't done much leading on the Lamar power plant issues, which have been a nightmare for Lamar since well before 2009. It used to be a coal plant. The boiler didn't work, and the plant was noisy and filthy.  In 2010, it was shut down.

      Since then, the town has wrestled with the dilemma of whether to tear it down and decommission it, and start over, or try to fix it. I searched in vain for any mention of Larry Crowder's name in a utility board meeting, a citizen complaint session, on any legislative bills to try and remedy the situation. Nada.

      Insurance and money issues- Crowder shows anti-worker bias

      Looking at Crowder's 2012 contributors, the dominant industries were finance, insurance, and real estate. These industries would have taken a short-term financial hit had the town voted to demolish the plant, even though it would have been better long term.  This trend continues in his 2015 campaign finance reports – they are heavy on the lobbyists from insurance and finance industries.

      This would also explain his reversal on PERA – in a 2014 town hall, Crowder said that he was against privatizing PERA. But a couple of years later, he was all about defending his vote on SB80, which shifts costs and risks from employers to retirees. 

      In that  2014 town hall, Crowder said that he was against raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and showed really appalling ignorance about how many people are paid minimum wage. (He thought that only 2% of workers receive minimum wage).

      He said that he was in favor of a "median wage", to which the town hall crowd replied, "…..Huh?!" His voting record shows that he did not vote for the "wage theft" bill, which would have outlawed this practice.

      Crowder is a likeable guy, an old-fashioned gentleman. However, he hasn't been remarkably effective as a legislator dealing with some of the pressing environmental and economic issues his constituents face.

  7. I don't really understand why these sheriffs are advocating the increased armament of the people they serve. After all, it these same sheriffs who will face these guns when they come to take them from cold, dead hands. Or when they have to populate the FEMA camps. Or when they have to enforce grazing contracts.

  8. Funny how CoPols always seems to go after folks like former Sen. Lois Tochtrop and Sen. Cheri Jahn for their "independent streak" when Sen. Jahn's 2014 re-election by barely 400 votes shows that Democrats also benefit from her being able to hold a very swing seat created in redistricting.  Pretty sure Dems would have lost that seat if they had a candidate who was very liberal and did not have the small business chops.  Just pointing out how things get spun.  SD 35 has MORE registered D's than R's, vs. SD 20 that has many more R's than D's.

    So are we going to be purists or pragmatists?  Make up your minds!

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

99 readers online now

Newsletter

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