Liberal and Loving It

Candidates Always Vet the Background Before accepting an Interview

We keep hearing again and again and again, after we discover that a candidate has been interviewed on a podcast or show or blog by a white supremist or other disgusting lowlife that the candidate had no idea about their interviewer's background. That they talk to everybody and don't have time to check the background of the people interviewing them.

This is Bullshit!

Around 10 years ago I interviewed most of the electeds in Colorado. Governor Ritter, Senators Salazar, Bennet, & Udall. Representatives DeGette, Polis, Buck, Coffman, Perlmutter, & Tancredo. Numerous state legislators and in the City of Boulder city council members.

Almost without exception it was a major effort to get an interview. Reaching out 10 - 20 times was not unusual. And this was at all levels. I had interviewed most of the top state electeds and still had a hell of a time getting interviews with the Boulder City Council candidates that had a real chance at winning. And more often than not I would be challenged on my background (not just by Republicans) and what questions was I going to ask.

Equally interesting were the interviews that were never allowed. In the case of several I was told by a person involved in the discussion, who thought they should have agreed, that there was a major discussion as to whether or not to agree to the interview. With the discussion going over my background, how I had handled previous interviews, and if it would play out well for the candidate.

The candidate's time is by far the most valuable thing a campaign has. It is the only thing that is truly limited. You can always at least hope to raise more money. But you can't get more hours in the day. The campaign is very careful to make sure that each interview is going to have a better payoff than any alternative use of the candidates time. And the background and types of questions of the prospective interviewer are a large part of that.

So when a candidate claims they had no idea the person interviewing them is a Nazi or wants to treat women as in The Handmaid's Tale - they knew. They knew very well.

ps - The two biggest interviews I didn't get was Scott McInnis (vs. Dan Maes) and Gail Norton (vs. Ken Buck). Both McInnis & Norton lost their primaries. I'm not saying that not being interviewed by me meant an election loss. But the data sure points that way :)

Thoughts on Homelessness & the Louisville City Council

There was a recent post on nextdoor demanding that the Louisville City Council eliminate the homelessness problem. The undercurrent of the post and most of the comments is that the City Council could make it all go away if they wanted to.

Now I don't know any of the City Council members, but I'm willing to bet that they would all happily make it go away if that was in their power. Why wouldn't they? Homeless people don't vote, and most of the complainers do. Easy choice.

The problem is - this needs to be addressed at the state level. If Louisville addresses it alone, they either need to go heavy on the enforcement driving the homeless elsewhere with strict laws and significant additional police presence. Or they need to provide the housing and mental health care to get them out of the parks and other areas.

Either approach is very expensive. The city's main revenue is sales tax. If you increase that say 25% (wild ass guess at the cost), then you drive business away from local restaurants & stores. You could well end up with the same total revenue because of reduced business.

So you need to have this handled state wide. The state can have the localities implement the system, but it will need state level money and guidance on what works and how to implement. With state level you also avoid cities pushing their homeless into adjoining cities (the police approach) or attracting homeless from neighboring cities (the address the problem approach).

Ok so great, you talk to your state legislators, you come up with a workable program, everyone thinks it's great. Now you have to fund it. Because of TABOR you will need to put a proposal on the ballot to increase taxes to cover the cost of this. The state budget is incredibly lean so there's no spare money to fund something of this size.

So what will you tax that a majority of voters will approve? Higher income tax, higher sales tax, higher tax on oil & gas production? Can you get this through when rural voters see no need for it as the homeless are an urban problem?

You want homelessness addressed? The above is a very high level listing of what you need to step up and do. Yelling at the local city councils won't accomplish squat on this issue. So if you are serious, start working with your state legislators and get ready for a lot of effort over a couple of years to have a prayer of success.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

ps - I posted the above on NextDoor and it received a total of 4 comments. An earlier post that was a rant about homelessness and claiming the Louisville City Council could fix it if they wanted received 644 comments mostly agreeing. It's interesting that people will happily rant calling for impossible simplistic solutions blaming the problem on others. But actually discussing the true issues of a problem evokes almost no discussion.

The Colorado Races - State of the State for this Election

Colorado is officially a purple-ish state but it's more accurate to say it's blue-ish where a Republican could still win statewide. If the planets align perfectly. They're not aligning this election.

What I find interesting is that water & homelessness will unquestionably be the two biggest issues in Colorado over the next couple of years. And we've hit the point where applying band-aids to it will no longer suffice. These will dominate the legislature and be a major part of the Governor's and Attorney General's job. And it's getting almost no discussion.

The only case I have seen of this getting attention is from Travis Nelson, the Democratic candidate running for SD-35. He's challenging his opponent to a paintball match followed by a discussion on water issues. Kudos to Travis for both innovative marketing and seeing that water is issue #1.

• Governor - Jared Polis has done a superb job, is widely respected, and is going to coast to re-election.
• Secretary of State - Jena Griswold has also done a superb job as a very competent SoS. Her opponent Pam Anderson was first running as a competent candidate who did not embrace the big lie. So a strong competitor. But Pam recently embraced the big lie and this probably makes this a strong win for Jena. Probably.
• Attorney General - Phil Weiser has rolled up endorsements not only from every Democrat, but from numerous Republicans. He's widely respected and should have a strong win.
• Treasurer - Dave Young has done a good job but this position tends to be invisible. If someone wants to ticket split or just reflexively vote Republican, this is the place to do it. On the plus side, he's running against Lang Sias who loses race after race. So probably Democratic but this is more a party line vote than a vote for the person.
• Senator - Michael Bennet is respected, not controversial, and has done a good job. While he won't win with as big a number as Jared, he'll do very well.
• U.S. House districts 1 - 6 will all be easily held by the incumbent. (No matter how much you may detest Lauren Boebert, a majority of voters in her district like her.)
• CD-7 - Brittany Pettersen has this in the bag. The district leans Democratic and her opponent is a non-entity.
• CD-8 - This baby is competitive. Maybe the most competitive in the country. It has a clear difference between Yadira Caraveo [D] & Barbara Kirkmeyer [R]. Both are very good campaigners and the race will come down to what the voters are most concerned about. Caraveo is moderately liberal while Kirkmeyer is way far right but pretending to be moderate.
• State House - will stay strongly Democratic
• State Senate - this could flip to Republican control. There are 7 competitive seats and we Democrats need to win 3 of them to retain control (and more would be better). Odds are this stays Democratic but those odds are say 60:40 so it could...

So what races matter in Colorado? CD-8 matters more than everything else put together. I'd take winning CD-8 and losing SoS & the state Senate over the reverse. So every bit of extra effort in the state should be focused on helping Yadira Caraveo. With a little bit of help for Jena Griswold. 

As to the state Senate candidates - they need to be out going door to door every weekend all weekend long. And weekdays in the early evening. That's how state legislative races are won. If all 7 of them do a good job on the door to door, then 3 of those races should be won at a minimum.

Election night will be good in Colorado. CD-8 (and to a degree SoS, AG, & Treasurer) will determine if it's a great night.

The Gubernatorial Races

As I discussed in my overview of the election, the gubernatorial races are the second most important (after Secretary of State). The races that are competitive are:

Lean Rep:

• Georgia - Stacey Abrams

Tossup:

• Arizona - Katie Hobbs
• Kansas - Laura Kelly
• Nevada - Steve Sisolak
• Oregon - Tina Kotek
• Wisconsin - Tony Evers

Lean Dem:

• Maine - Janet Mills
• Michigan - Gretchen Whitmer
• New Mexico - Michelle Lujan Grisham
• Pennsylvania - Josh Shapiro

From the DGA (via email):

Some of the most competitive states we’re looking at are states like Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. In those states, extreme GOP candidates for governor have pushed conspiracies about the 2020 election and have promised to restrict reproductive rights. In Pennsylvania, where the governor has the power to appoint the secretary of state, Doug Mastriano has all but guaranteed he’ll select someone just as radical as he is, who would not have certified Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. He’s also said banning abortion is his top priority if elected. In Wisconsin, GOP candidate Tim Michels has promised to uphold the state’s archaic abortion ban that doesn’t allow for exceptions for rape and incest. In Michigan, Tudor Dixon has said she would enact an abortion ban that makes no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. 

On offense, our most competitive races are Georgia and Arizona where we have two powerhouse Democratic candidates in Stacey Abrams and Katie Hobbs. Both are taking on extreme Republicans, 

If you view this election as primarily about retaining our democracy, as I do, then Georgia going to Kemp is ok because he has shown that he puts country before party. By the same measure, Kansas is not going to vote for a Democrat for President. And Oregon & New Mexico will be strongly Democratic in the presidential. Too strong for a Republican governor to pull any tricks.

By the same measure, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, & Wisconsin are absolutely critical to win as the Republican candidates in each of these races is a big lie proponent. If those states elect Republicans to the Governorship & Secretary of State, we could well see those states throw out the vote in 2024 and hand their state's votes to the Republican candidate.

Gubernatorial candidates tend to get enough in donations, but if you want to donate, a little more is useful. Based on the combination of competitiveness and how critical each state is, the following are the key races. And remember, money donated directly to the candidate has a lot more oomph.

• Arizona - Katie Hobbs
• Michigan - Gretchen Whitmer
• Nevada - Steve Sisolak
• Pennsylvania - Josh Shapiro
• Wisconsin - Tony Evers

Even more useful is if you reside in any of these states - volunteer. Walk door to door. Call people. Best of all, talk to friends & family about why they need to vote (and for who).

Too Much Money is Detrimental to Campaigns

Have you ever seen a political campaign say "we've got enough money, donate elsewhere?" Me either.

The conventional wisdom is more money means you win. Hillary Clinton raised over a billion dollars, approximately double what Donald Trump raised. Trump won. Amy McGrath raised 37 million, over double what Mitch McConnell raised. McConnel won by 20 points. And in both those campaigns as well as every other their primary ask down to election day was for more money.

Money is unquestionably important. It's critical up to the amount that funds a decent campaign. It's important up to the amount needed for a useful level of advertising. But after that point it's not only a waste, but it diverts from useful efforts.

Why the all consuming focus on money? Maybe because it's easily measurable. Maybe because it is a simple answer that allows people to continue on efforts that are familiar & easy. Maybe because it's what people know. But it's detrimental to campaigns.

Once a campaign has a reasonable amount of money, what's the most important thing they need from voters? No, not more money. They need the voters to help on two key efforts. First, to get all people that would vote Democratic to actually vote. Second, to get people that are persuadable to select the Democratic candidates and then actually vote.

At the same time, when campaigns are trying to get people to cast their vote and to select the Democratic candidates on the ballot who is the most effective at making this happen? No not a TV ad, it's their friends & family. Asking people to donate money to run a TV ad to accomplish the same is incredibly ineffective compared to the direct route.

So what should be done? As a campaign approaches a reasonable amount of money (which is a lot less than every campaign will claim it is), the emails, should all be focused on getting supporters to talk to friends & family. The website should have two main calls to action - for those learning to go through the issues, why they're important, and where the candidate is on them. The second CTA should be for supporters to reach out to friends & family. And the digital ads - same two CTAs as the website, probably with most on the first - where the candidate is on the policies.

The party also needs to put a giant effort in on the door to door for the state legislative candidates - in all districts. Because a vote for that legislator is also a vote for the state wide candidates. In a safe district, that vote is every bit as powerful. In a Republican district a flipped vote is doubly powerful. And this close to home campaigning is incredibly powerful. And much more useful than the candidate taking time to raise money for one additional mailer.

And if you do want to donate, do so where the campaign is underfunded. But much more valuable is if you go door to door for a state legislative candidate and talk to your family & friends.

Candidates who get it - the following if you go to their websites you are not presented with a big contribute form. They ask you to volunteer. There's a contribute button but the big CTA is for volunteers. My prediction is the following will win because they realized that enlisting volunteers is more valuable then money.

• Steve Sisolak - Governor of Nevada
• {please let me know of any other examples in the comments}

The Secretary of State Races

Update: I believe a critical part of both prioritizing and being true to the criteria of backing candidates who will count accurately is to support, or at least not contribute against, the Republicans who have put our Democracy first. For Secretary of State Brad Raffensperfer is a clear example of this.

I thought Pam Anderson in Colorado was another. However, she recently made it clear she's willing to play along with proponents of the big lie. And that means, once in office, she could well continue down that route. Colorado is blue-ish but electing a Republican state-wide is possible. So I am adding Jena Griswold to the please actively support list.

---

As I wrote yesterday, the most important races are the ones for Secretary of State. If this is held by an election denier, then they alone can wreck untold havoc on our democracy and potentially single handedly destroy the vote in their state. So let's take a look at the states:

• Arizona
• Georgia - Brad Raffensperger [R] has shown he will protect the vote.
• Michigan
• Nevada
• Pennsylvania - appointed by the Governor
• Wisconsin - The SoS has very little authority, because it's been held by Doug La Follette [D] forever.

The Democratic Association of Secretaries of State is on top of this and is very focused on what is key. From them via an email conversation:

DASS's top target states are Michigan, Nevada, Arizona and Georgia; we will also be watching Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Colorado closely. 

Among states with the characteristics you described [competitive race, election denier opponent], that would be Michigan, Nevada, Arizona and Minnesota. In all of these states, election-denying Republicans are running against our incumbents or candidates who are committed to protecting the right to vote. These candidates are extreme as can be — from Jim Marchant in Nevada serving as one of Trump's "alternate electors" who attempted to overturn the Nevada election, to Arizona's Mark Finchem, who recently sued to get rid of all voting machines in the state and has been subpoenaed by the January 6th committee for his role in spreading misinformation, attending the insurrection and putting together Arizona's slate of "alternate electors." We have set up a "Deny the Deniers" program in these states to support Sec. Steve Simon (MN), Sec. Jocelyn Benson (MI), Bee Nguyen (GA nominee) and Cisco Aguilar (NV nominee). I'd also be happy to share any more information on the specific races — that link should also give some information about the candidates running on both sides. 

I disagree with DASS on Colorado [see update above], Georgia, Iowa, & Washington. We retain our democracy if the Republican candidate wins in Georgia & Colorado. Iowa is red. It used to be purple, but it's red now. And Washington is blue. The SoS candidate in Washington would have to do something unbelievably stupid to lose. I do agree with their view that Minnesota is not super blue and it's an awful Republican candidate there. And Wisconsin would be a problem if the Republican wins as they'll then give the office authority.

So, if you have money to donate, please before anything else max out on the following. And remember, money donated directly to the candidate has a lot more oomph.

• Arizona - Adrian Fontes
• Colorado - Jena Griswold
• Michigan - Jocelyn Benson
• Minnesota - Steve Simon
• Nevada - Cisco Aguilar
• Wisconsin - Doug La Follette
• Deny the Deniers

Donating to the above is the most powerful thing you can do in this election. These offices have more power over our remaining a democracy than anything else you can do. And at the same time these races are significantly underfunded so your money has an outsize impact.

The key Races to Defend our Democracy

There are a number of issues in the upcoming race from inflation to women's rights to immigration to climate change. And more.

And not a single one matters if we lose our democracy. Not one. Because if we transition to a kleptocracy anchored on a fundamentalist white Christian theocracy, then say goodbye to being able to have any impact on any issue. Step 1 is retain our right to have our vote counted and for the winner to take office. Everything is built on that.

Retaining this right requires focus. The key elections in the key states. First are the states. We don't care if Wyoming gets an election denier as Secretary of State & Governor - they're a slam dunk vote for the Republican slate. It's the purple states that matter. The key ones are:

• Arizona
• Georgia
• Michigan
• Nevada
• Pennsylvania
• Wisconsin

And of secondary importance are the following. The election is unlikely to be decided by these states, but they are purple trending blue and if they are captured by election deniers, then as they turn blue, the increasing votes from Democrats will be ignored, making those states an autocracy. They don't endanger the nation, but they do endanger the residents of these states.

• Florida
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Texas

And what matters in these states? Very simply, the races for:

1. Secretary of State
2. Governor
3. State Legislature
4. Attorney General
5. County Clerks

They first two are the ball game. If both are election deniers then the results in that state are, at a minimum, going to be the subject of a long vicious drawn out fight. And at worst, they will be handed to the Republican candidates regardless of the vote totals.

The state legislatures are also worrisome because they can make it very difficult for one group to vote and easy for the other. For example, the limit of one drop box per county is no issue in a rural county where the volume is so low, but is a gigantic slow down in an urban county. In addition, there is a case going to the Supreme Court that could well be decided that the legislature can pass any law with respect to voting that is not bound by the state constitution, is not to be reviewed by the state Supreme Court, and is not subject to the Governor's veto.

So it's critical to get a majority in at least one of the legislative houses. It should be easy in a purple state but the districts are so gerrymanded that it's damn close to impossible. But close to, not absolutely impossible. What it does require is a substantial focus on the legislative races.

Finally, having the Attorney General on the side of Democracy is very valuable if this goes to the courts. And having honest competent county clerks drastically reduces the number of places that can be problematic. (And fortunately the vast majority of county clerks, Republican and Democrat, are focused on doing a good job.)

Now here's the giant problem. Where's the biggest focus in the election? The U.S. Senate. What's #2? The U.S. House. Both very important. But unequivocally secondary to the above races. Even more frustrating, most competitive Senate races get more money than they need. And many House races also are overfunded. While the SoS and state legislative races are way underfunded. Same with volunteer time, way too much on the federal races, way too little on the state races.

The other key point in this is it is not elect the Democrat in every race. I mean, sure that would be great. But we need to focus on defeating the deniers and that means giving the Republicans that support democracy a pass. By all means vote the Democratic ticket, but put your effort in where it's our Democracy on the line. We have to focus.

The best examples of this is first Georgia where Kemp & Raffensperger showed that they will support the constitution and our democracy. Second is Pam Anderson in Colorado who is well qualified for the SoS position and has not embraced the big lie. If those three win and Democrats win the key offices in the other states - our Democracy is safe (at least for the next 2 years).

So when you donate, when you volunteer, when you do anything political - Secretary of State & Governor in the key states.

Creating a Technology & Innovation Hub in Grand Junction

The CHIPs act includes:

Central to the bill’s response to the place problem is the authorization of $10 billion over five years to create 20 geographically distributed regional technology and innovation hubs. Reserved for areas “that are not leading technology centers,” the hubs will focus major investment surges toward up-and-coming tech ecosystems in order to expand U.S. innovation capacity, accelerate technology development, and support job creation. As a group and at scale, the hubs are a serious bid to counter excess concentration and nudge new places onto the U.S. growth map. 

To me this screams Grand Junction. Something like this can't be dropped in Lamar or Beaver Utah. There needs to be a sizeable professional workforce and a decent University. At the same time, it needs to be a location hours away from any existing technology hub to qualify. In other words, not too big, not much of a tech/research industry. But close, on the edge of being able to become one.

That's 500 million to create a regional center. That's enough money to get something up and running in Grand Junction. Especially if the State and City kick in what they can including free land, etc. 

And the pay-off? A lot of very well paying high tech jobs. Colorado Mesa University will improve and become a center for research and education in the specialties of the center. There will be spin-off start-ups. And all that brings in a lot of supportive jobs, everything from more home sales to additional coffee shops.

The Center for...

To be successful it will need to be a specialized center. Try for too much and all you have is some general research that doesn't bring experts, does not accomplish much, and is unlikely to get funding. But focusing on something critical, something that can leverage expertise elsewhere in Colorado, and promise useful results - that will get funding.

I think it should be one of the two following areas of focus:

First, batteries and the electrical grid. Officially, everything from when the electrons leave the generator plant to when the electrons arrive at the homes and businesses consuming the power. The two big focuses are batteries - both designing & manufacturing them and the power grid which is presently held together with spit and baling wire.

The battery part is a natural for Colorado as a large part of it is finding and extracting the minerals needed to manufacturer the batteries. It's also something that can be done in partnership with the School of Mines and NREL among others. So nearby expertise. As a Colorado Center all this can be brought together.

The second possibility is water. Everything from the law (which would require Mesa U. to add a law school) to distribution to figuring out how needs to have their allocation reduced or eliminated. Colorado is a natural here because it's the headlands of the Colorado river, our state itself has been working to balance the trade-offs between farmers, tourism, mining, and urban needs.

Either way

Finally I think the proposal for this should be worked up for two outcomes. Outcome 1 is it is funded with the 500M from the feds. But outcome 2 is it is not funded. In that case, this is still a great idea. So it gets started smaller/cheaper. But is is started. Because these problems need solutions and we can have well paid people in Grand Junction be the ones to solve the problems.