Showing posts with label gop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gop. Show all posts

03 March 2015

Opinion: 50 Shades of Ryan Call (He's Just Not That Into You)

If "corruption" was a color, we'd need more than 50 Shades for this post.


I have, thus far (and surprisingly successfully), stayed almost entirely out of the 2015 Colorado Republican Chairman's race.

It's no secret that Ryan Call and I aren't exactly friendly (I am, after all, on his enemies list), and that I supported and voted for Steve House at State Assembly for Governor in 2014.  Needless to say, this one is a no-brainer for me.  But without a vote on March 14, it seemed unnecessary for me to step in and rehash so many old things... until now.

This past weekend was the final straw for me, and for many in the Colorado GOP.  Many have continued to come back over and over to someone who has continually thumbed his nose at us, but it's time to make a clean break once and for all.

Before we do that, however, let's see what built up to this moment.  Yes, it's snarky and sarcastic, but solidly based in reality (as you'll see with all the links and endnotes).  Did you really expect anything else from me?  At this point, the joke is on all of usall Colorado Republicans, and we're all losing because of it.  Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.  Enough is enough.

Join me (and those signed below) in breaking up with Ryan Call—and if you're bold enough, let me know and I'll add your name to this letter, too (man or woman... unlike Ryan Call, I won't discriminate based on gender).

If Call wins, Colorado loses.  It's that simple.






From the Desk of
Colorado Republican Women

March 3, 2015

Our dear Chairman Ryan Call,

We’ve been together for almost 4 years now.  Maybe it’s time to think about where we are at, and what we have accomplished in our relationship.

The Colorado Republican Party has made some improvements.  We’re now caught up to the early 2000s in technology, as opposed to dwelling in the 1980s dark ages... so there’s that. 

We applaud you for your attempt at building an infrastructure, such as it is, but with nothing there before, it’s a good place to start.

However… not everything has been so rosy.

I mean, we might have been able to overlook your $400 maxed-out contribution in 2006 to Bernie Buescher (screenshots here), a Democratic candidate, while you were Denver County Republican Party Vice Chair… if you didn’t threaten to withhold money from viable Republican candidates because they didn’t pick a company you liked to work with them on their campaign.

We could forget your lovely 2011 mug shot—from a traffic ticket you managed to forget to show up to court for… as a lawyer—if you weren’t funneling tens of thousands of Colorado Republican Committee dollars to your own law firm[1].

It would be possible to forget that you threw two Republican state legislators (Sen. Vicki Marble and Rep. Lori Saine) under the bus… if you didn't admonish the entire House and Senate Republican delegation over opposing in-state tuition for illegal aliens (in clear opposition to the Party platform[2]).

We could turn a blind eye to your pathetic and paltry support of state legislative candidates[3, 4]… if only your pet IEC hadn’t just been found guilty of violating state law on 4 counts—while you are a member of the RNC Finance Committee, and after you trumpeted on the radio that the “independent” committee was, in fact, coordinating with the Republican Party after all.

Maybe we could live with all the secrecy and non-transparency of your entire administration if you didn’t hire a convicted crook to run your new IEC.  I mean… you let someone guilty of federal crimes into our home?  We thought you cared more about our safety, credibility, and integrity as a Party than that.

Speaking of money… you promised us back in 2011 that we would win in November 2012, or our money back—guaranteed!  Here’s what over $8 million (mostly given to you by the blood, sweat, and tears of the RNC, and not from your own shoe leather) bought us in 2012:
  • A loss for Romney in Colorado.
  • A loss in our only statewide election.
  • No change in Congress (despite a potential pick up in at least one district).
  • No change at the CU Board of Regents (when there were two potential pick-ups).
  • No change at the State Board of Education (granted, with only CDs 2 and 4 up, there wasn’t going to be any change this election cycle).
  • No change in the State Senate (despite two very winnable seats, and two more toss-ups).
  • The largest loss in the State House, from 33R-32D to 37D-28R, since 2004—the year of The Blueprint.

Oops.  That was kind of embarrassing.  Let’s move on to something better, shall we?   Like 2014.  This past election, we saw…
  • A loss for Beauprez; but wins for 3 other statewide Republicans.
  • No change in Congress; but a win for Gardner.
  • No change at the CU Board of Regents.
  • No change at the State Board of Education.
  • A 1-seat (net) gain in the State Senate (18R/17D)—could have been 3 net wins.
  • A 3-seat gain in the State House (34D/31R)—could have been 6 wins.


That’s a little more positive, isn’t it?  Slow clap on winning one national race while largely letting the rest of the state stay stagnant.

Look.  We might be able to applaud your minimal gains for Republicans in Colorado after 2 terms and nearly $20 million dollars spent on elections[5]… if only registration for active Republicans hadn’t dropped by 5.49% under your tenure, with an overall drop of 1.29% of total registered Republicans during that time[6, 7].

And then there’s your statement on October 7, 2013 about the Senate District 19 recall (“This recall election would undermine our efforts in the governor’s race, the U.S. Senate race and to win a senate majority if voters perceive that Republicans are trying to win a majority through recalls.” [source]).  Now, this we might forgive and forget if it wasn’t just so blatantly wrong—after all, we did win the U.S. Senate seat and the State Senate majority… only and entirely because this seat was up for election in 2014.  This is, of course, after you opposed the ruling that made success even possible in the Senate Districts 3 and 11 recalls… and then tried to cover that up by removing the press release from your website.

Here’s the rub.  There’s a lot we are willing to turn a blind eye to in the name of “unity”.  There’s even a lot that we think can, and should, be kept behind closed doors. 

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that nothing ever gets resolved behind closed doors because you pretend like we don’t exist.  Let’s face it.  You have a very poor track record of dealing with us women.  I mean, just look at the numbers:
  • 4/30 female candidates in 2014 received State Party support
  • 5/24 female candidates in 2012 received State Party support
  • A mere 14% of funds given to candidates in 2012 and 2014 went to women, who made up almost 1/3rd of all candidates for statewide and state legislative offices

And yet, despite all that, we stayed steadfast, loyal, and true.  But no more.

The final straw, Mr. Chairman, was the transparent and blatant power grab just this past weekend in Costilla County, where you chose to unseat duly elected officers and replace them with your handpicked voters.  We are willing to tolerate a lot, but you finally crossed a bridge too far and we just can’t do it anymore.

We’re not asking for special treatment.  We’re not even asking for the same treatment you give to men.  All we want is a little bit of fair play.  Is that really so much to ask?

It’s time for us to face the truth.  You’ve shown that you’re not that into us. 

Well… guess what?  That feeling is mutual. 

We’re just not that into you, either. 

And no… we can’t be ‘just friends.’  We’re through.


Disaffectionately,

Colorado Republican Women
Sarah Arnold, Regan Benson, Meaghan Croghan, Sharon Croghan, Lana Fore, Mary Anne Greer, Leslie Hanks, Alexandra Harden, Judy Howell, Tina Jones Griffiths, DoriĆ© Ann Lehan, Becky Mizel, Julie Naye, Jen Raiffie, Mailyn Salabarria, Julie Scott, Anita Stapleton, Nancy Wenlock

And the men who love Colorado Republican women...
Matt Arnold, George Athanasopoulos, Kim Herzfeld, William Howell, Simon Kane, Robert Pryor, Joe Webb



__________________

END NOTES

[1] $147,225.00 from 2011-current paid to Hale Westfall LLP by the Colorado Republican Committee. Search committee #C00033134.

[2] “Illegal immigrants should not receive any non-emergency benefits, services or privileges from federal, state or local governments.” [source]

[3] 28.66% of CRC funds, according to TRACER, went directly to non-federal candidates in 2012. 62.41% of CRC funds, according to TRACER, went directly to non-federal candidates in 2014—a number which drops dramatically to a mere 14.85% when you remove contributions to gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez. Search committee #19991500072.

[4] CRC money spent in the state of Colorado in 2012 on non-federal elections was 4.41% of the total operating budget that cycle. CRC money spent in the state of Colorado in 2014 on non-federal elections was 8.04% of the total operating budget that cycle. See notes 1 and 3 to find committee information on TRACER and FEC.
        In other words, 1.21% of total CRC money was spent on non-federal candidates in 2012; and only 4.65% of total CRC money was spend on non-federal candidates in 2014… or 1.11% if you take out Beauprez’s contributions.

[5] 64 Republicans in statewide and federal office in 2011 vs. 66 Republicans in statewide and federal office in 2015 (out of 130).

[6] 38.33% active registered Republicans as of 1 April 2011, 32.69% total registered Republicans as of 1 April 2011 [source]

[7] 32.84% active registered Republicans as of 1 February 2015, 31.40% total registered Republicans as of 1 February 2015 [source]

01 February 2015

94%: The 2014 Election Wrap-up Post

Sorry for the long delay on this--family life and work have been a little nutty since the election.

Taken from here.

Okay, so it isn't the 97% of 2012.  But I'll take it.  Especially because, once again, Nate Silver isn't better than me (we tied this time, counting his U.S. Senate Predictions).

This election was not decided on Election Night in Colorado.  Had we gone based on Election Night results, Colorado would now have a Republican Governor, a 20R-15D Senate Majority, and a 33R-32D House Majority.  That... didn't exactly happen, now did it?

This is why early returns are, frankly, unimportant!  I watched way too many people get their hopes up.  That smashing 7%+ victory for Cory Gardner on Election Night?  It was actually just under 2%.  It wasn't a blowout.  Beauprez winning?  Nope.  He lost by 3.35%.  Taking the State House?  Ha... no.  And we barely have a Senate Majority.  Don't forget that it took weeks for Adams County to finish counting, and that there was one seat within the margins for an automatic recount in Southwest Colorado (House District 59), although the ultimate result there didn't change.

Below is a brief review of the final election results.  Results may be found on the Secretary of State's website.

Legend:
Bold denotes incumbent
Italic indicates an incorrect call
Red shows a Republican Pick-up
Blue delineates a Democratic Pick-up
Races with no-call are green

Statewide

Pre-Election Make-up: 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 4 Democrats, 2 Republicans 
Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats
Seats up: 5
  • U.S. Senate (class 3): Cory Gardner (Republican)
  • Governor: John Hickenlooper (Democratic)
  • Attorney General: Cynthia Coffman (Republican)
  • Secretary of State: Wayne Williams (Republican)
  • Treasurer: Walker Stapleton (Republican)
3/5

Congressional

Pre-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 toss-up
Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Seats up: 7
  • Congressional District 1: Diana Degette (Democratic)
  • Congressional District 2: Jared Polis (Democratic)
  • Congressional District 3: Scott Tipton (Republican)
  • Congressional District 4: Ken Buck (Republican)
  • Congressional District 5: Doug Lamborn (Republican)
  • Congressional District 6: Mike Coffman (Republican)
  • Congressional District 7: Ed Perlmutter (Democratic)
6/6, 1 toss-up

CU Regent

Pre-Election Make-up: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Post-Election Make-up: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Seats up: 3
  • Congressional District 2: Linda Shoemaker (Republican)
  • Congressional District 6: John Carson (Republican)
  • Congressional District 7: Irene Griego (Democratic)
3/3

State Board of Education

Pre-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Post-Election Make-up: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Seats up: 3
  • Congressional District 1: Valentina Flores (Democratic)
  • Congressional District 3: Marcia Neal (Republican)
  • Congressional District 7: Jane Goff (Democratic)
3/3

State Senate

Pre-Election Make-up: 18 Democrats, 17 Republicans
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 18 Democrats, 16 Republicans, 1 toss-up
Post-Election Make-up: 18 Republicans, 17 Democrats
Seats up: 18
  • Senate District 1: Jerry Sonnenberg (Republican)
  • Senate District 2: Kevin Grantham (Republican)
  • Senate District 3: Leroy Garcia (Democratic)
  • Senate District 5: Kerry Donovan (Democratic)
  • Senate District 6: Ellen Roberts (Republican)
  • Senate District 7: Ray Scott (Republican)
  • Senate District 9: Kent Lambert (Republican)
  • Senate District 11: Michael Merrifield (Democratic)
  • Senate District 13: John Cooke (Republican)
  • Senate District 15: Kevin Lundberg (Republican)
  • Senate District 16: Tim Neville (Republican)
  • Senate District 19: Laura Woods (Republican)
  • Senate District 20: Cheri Jahn (Democratic)
  • Senate District 22: Andy Kerr (Democratic)
  • Senate District 24: Beth Martinez-Humenik (Republican)
  • Senate District 30: Chris Holbert (Republican)
  • Senate District 32: Irene Aguilar (Democratic)
  • Senate District 34: Lucia Guzman (Democratic)
15/17, 1 toss-up

State House

Pre-Election Make-up: 37 Democrats, 28 Republicans
Projected Post-Election Make-up: 36 Democrats, 29 Republicans
Post-Election Make-up: 34 Democrats, 31 Republicans
Seats up: 65
  • House District 1: Susan Lontine (Democratic)
  • House District 2: Alec Garnett (Democratic)
  • House District 3:  Daniel Kagan (Democratic)
  • House District 4: Dan Pabon (Democratic)
  • House District 5: Crisanta Duran (Democratic)
  • House District 6: Lois Court (Democratic)
  • House District 7: Angela Williams (Democratic)
  • House District 8: Beth McCann (Democratic)
  • House District 9:  Paul Rosenthal (Democratic)
  • House District 10: Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (Democratic)
  • House District 11: Jonathan Singer (Democratic)
  • House District 12: Mike Foote (Democratic)
  • House District 13: K.C. Becker (Democratic)
  • House District 14: Dan Nordberg (Republican)
  • House District 15: Gordon Klingenschmitt (Republican)
  • House District 16: Janak Joshi (Republican)
  • House District 17: Kit Roupe (Republican)
  • House District 18: Pete Lee (Democratic)
  • House District 19: Paul Lundeen (Republican)
  • House District 20: Terri Carver (Republican)
  • House District 21: Lois Landgraf (Republican)
  • House District 22: Justin Everett (Republican)
  • House District 23: Max Tyler (Democratic)
  • House District 24: Jessie Danielson (Democratic)
  • House District 25: Jon Keyser (Republican)
  • House District 26: Diane Mitsch-Bush (Democratic)
  • House District 27: Libby Szabo (Republican)
  • House District 28: Brittany Pettersen (Democratic)
  • House District 29: Tracy Kraft-Tharp (Democratic)
  • House District 30: JoAnn Windholz (Republican)
  • House District 31: Joe Salazar (Democratic)
  • House District 32: Dominick Moreno (Democratic)
  • House District 33: Dianne Primavera (Democratic)
  • House District 34: Steve Lebsock (Democratic)
  • House District 35: Faith Winter (Democratic)
  • House District 36: Su Ryden (Democratic)
  • House District 37: Jack Tate (Republican)
  • House District 38: Kathleen Conti (Republican)
  • House District 39: Polly Lawrence (Republican)
  • House District 40: John Buckner (Republican)
  • House District 41: Jovan Melton (Democratic)
  • House District 42: Ronda Fields (Democratic)
  • House District 43: Kevin Van Winkle (Republican)
  • House District 44: Kim Ransom (Republican)
  • House District 45: Patrick Neville (Republican)
  • House District 46: Daneya Esgar (Democratic)
  • House District 47: Clarice Navarro-Ratzlaff (Republican)
  • House District 48: Stephen Humphries (Republican)
  • House District 49: Perry Buck (Republican)
  • House District 50: Dave Young (Democratic)
  • House District 51: Brian DelGrosso (Republican)
  • House District 52: Joann Ginal (Democratic)
  • House District 53: Jeni Arndt (Democratic)
  • House District 54: Yeulin Willett (Republican)
  • House District 55: Dan Thurlow (Republican)
  • House District 56: Kevin Priola (Republican)
  • House District 57: Bob Rankin (Republican)
  • House District 58: Don Coram (Republican)
  • House District 59: J. Paul Brown (Republican)
  • House District 60: Jim Wilson (Republican)
  • House District 61: Millie Hamner (Democratic)
  • House District 62: Ed Vigil (Democratic)
  • House District 63: Lori Saine (Republican)
  • House District 64: Tim Dore (Republican)
  • House District 65: Jon Becker (Republican)
63/65

16 April 2014

Mythbusting the OGREs Use of "Common Core" Math Regarding 2012 Elections

Apparently some... mathematically challenged individuals, in a great display of the new "Common Core" math standards, are perpetuating the false meme that Libertarians caused a whole bunch of Republicans to lose in Colorado in 2012.  I've heard everywhere from 10-20 races (still circulating as recently as the State Republican Assembly last weekend, 12 April) where those pesky Libertarians "stole" Republican votes and caused a Democrat to win... except not so much.

Reality check: There were only 2* races in 2012 in Colorado where the margin of victory between the losing Republicans were made up by Libertarian/3rd Party votes... (CU Regent At-Large and SD19) and 1 race where the margin of victory between the losing Democrat was made up by Libertarian/3rd Party votes (SD35).  

Hmm.  Doesn't seem anywhere near even 10 races, now does it?

I suppose you could look at races like HD3 and HD33 as "close"--where the Democrats got less than 1% over 50%, but OVER 50% still wins, no matter HOW much over!  Maybe we need to make a basic math exam a pre-requisite for Republicans pontificating about elections in Colorado.

I know it's an inconvenient truth to your narrative, OGREs.  I'm sorry to once again burst your factually inaccurate bubble.  And I know, just because I'm a math girl doesn't mean everyone is.  But come on--if you're going to lie about something, at least made it something much harder to fact check than this.

For those of you interested, since the SOS Official Results don't include percentages, I've put that into a spreadsheet for you to check out for yourself.

*HD61 had a former Democrat Legislator running as an Unaffiliated in this race, obviously changing the dynamics.  The Libertarian in this race only received 2.73%, and in this case, it is highly unlikely the majority of the 3rd Party votes would have gone for the Republican--another fun trope the OGREs parade about--so I'm not sure it really counts towards this total, but in the interest of completeness, I've included this footnote.

09 November 2013

Opinion: Of enemy lists and State Party Chairs

It appears Chairman Call is preparing for Christmas and conflating himself with an evil Santa--making his enemy list and checking it twice.

In reports I've had from three Colorado Executive Committee Members, Ryan Call said at their September meeting that my husband, myself, Rich and Laurie Bratten, Ken Clark and Jason Worley (of Grassroots Radio), and Debbie Healy are the "six (sic) most detrimental people to the Republican Party in Colorado." (yes, if you can actually count, there are seven names there)

In fact, I spoke on Grassroots Radio back in September about this.  You can listen at the link.

Well, now I've seen it in writing, in the official minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting (email me if you want to see the entirety of the minutes, there is a lot more in there than just this, a fascinating read).
"Chairman Call said that folks like Jason Worley, Ken Clark, the Bratten's, Debbie Healy and the Arnold's are no friends of this party."
Not quite as... powerful, perhaps, as what was reported to me from three independent sources, but nonetheless it appears Ryan Call is making his enemy list (and he very well may have talked about us being detrimental--at the very least, apparently we aren't friends...).

Oh, but wait.  These aren't the official minutes.  It appears that yesterday, at their November executive committee meeting that EDITED minutes were submitted by the Chairman and his toady, the Executive Director, and put forth as the "real" minutes (you can email me for those as well, to contrast with what was submitted).  

Then, the Secretary was (according to reports I've received from several sources again) instructed to only write minutes in bullet points going forward by a vote of the Executive Committee.  I reached out to Lana for comments, but she declined.

Bottom line is this: something hinky... very hinky... is going on.  What does Ryan want hidden?  Of what is Ryan afraid?

Because the Republican Party can't get their act together, and because Ryan Call continues to declare all-out war on the Colorado Conservative, Liberty Groups, Tea Party, and Libertarian (big "L" and small "l" alike), I have a hard time seeing electoral successes in our future.  Any conservative victories in Colorado in 2014 will be IN SPITE OF the Colorado GOP, and certainly not because of.

15 August 2013

Opinion: Myths and Reality about the Colorado Recall Elections

There has been a lot of misinformation promulgated by far too many Establishment Republicans (and parroted by sheeple who haven't bothered to do their research) in this recall election.  We already have to fight Democrats--it's even more frustrating we have to keep fighting the false statements on our own side as well.  Here are several of those myths--debunked.

MYTH #1: "Owen Hill lost Senate District 11 in 2010 by 360 votes because of the Libertarian; therefore without a Libertarian in the race we are guaranteed a victory!"

Facts:
  1. This is NOT the same district as it was in 2010.  In 2010, Senate District 11 was a fairly evenly matched district that had been held by a Republican until Senator Morse's first win in 2006.  On 1 November 2010, the registration numbers looked drastically different than they do as of the latest numbers from the Secretary of State (1 August 2013).  See the first set of charts below for a comparison.  Please pay attention to the Active Voters % --  that is the most telling voter registration statistic, especially now because there will be no mail ballots this election.  Yes, SD11 picked up total Republican voters--but you'll notice they also picked up total voters overall, and Senate District 11 now has one of the largest contingents of Unaffiliated voters in the state.
  2. Not only have the voter registration numbers changed, the district performance numbers have changed, too.  Senate District 11 went from "leans Democrat" in 2010 (which, in my estimation, was a significant understatement based on the numbers) to pretty solidly Democrat now because of reapportionment.  The district performance went from D+1 in 2010 to D+6 in 2013.  See the second set of charts below for the reapportionment district average performance (for statewide races), and keep this in mind: 2010 was a wave Republican year, so that is likely a high-water mark for Republican performance.  It is unlikely, unless we see similar circumstances once again, to ever see that kind of Republican performance again until at least reapportionment in 2021.  And, you'll notice, even in that wave Republican year, both districts' reapportionment numbers underperformed the state GOP average and significantly outperformed the state Democrat average.
REALITY: Basing any assessment of Senate District 11's performance now, in 2013, on the old district's numbers doesn't prove any point other than that you are ignorant of the reapportionment process and it's ramifications.  They simply aren't comparable as they are not the same district.

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 3:

As of 1 November 2010:
Active Voters
Active %
Inactive Voters
Total
Total %
Democrat
32,483
49.27%
11,079
43,562
46.52%
Republican
16,345
24.79%
5,568
21,913
23.4%
Unaffiliated
16,790
25.47%
10,907
27,697
29.58%
Total
65,930
27,706
93,636

As of 1 August 2013:
Active Voters
Active %
Inactive Voters
Total
Total %
Democrat
38,327
46.83%
5,685
44,012
45.36%
Republican
19,081
23.31%
3,202
22,283
22.97%
Unaffiliated
23,798
29.08%
6,168
29,966
30.88%
Total
81,846
15,184
97,030

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 11:

As of 1 November 2010:
Active Voters
Active %
Inactive Voters
Total
Total %
Democrat
16,186
33.99%
5,968
22,154
33%
Republican
15,160
31.83%
3,798
18,958
28.24%
Unaffiliated
15,845
33.27%
9,502
25,347
37.76%
Total
47,623
19,502
67,125

As of 1 August 2013:
Active Voters
Active %
Inactive Voters
Total
Total %
Democrat
23,257
33.7%
4,524
27,781
33.29%
Republican
18,097
26.22%
2,902
20,999
25.17%
Unaffiliated
26,447
38.32%
6,752
33,199
39.79%
Total
69,016
14,427
83,443


Reapportionment District Performance Averages vs. State Averages in 2010 and 2012:

Reapportionment Average
2010 Statewide Average
2012 Statewide Average
Difference 2010
Difference 2012
SD3 DEM
58.22%
44.39%
47.15%
+13.83
+11.07
SD3 REP
40.2%
52.58%
46.76%
-12.38
-6.56
SD11 DEM
53.1%
44.39%
47.15%
+8.71
+5.95
SD11 REP
44.5%
52.58%
46.76%
-8.08
-2.26


MYTH #2: "If a Republican wins now, we only have to win one seat in 2014 to have the majority in the State Senate!"

Facts:
  1. While technically true if you do the math, this makes the (I think bad) assumption that we hold those two seats in 2014.
  2. What is far more likely is that we lose Senate Districts 3 and 11, but gain Senate Districts 5, 16, and at least one of 20, 22, or 24.  Any three of those five and we have the majority.  All five of those seats have a much better chance of a Republican winning than either Senate District 3 or 11.  I'll discuss those districts more in-depth in a later post.
REALITY: Even if a Republican takes these two districts in 2013, there is no guarantee the seats are retained, and I think there's a great likelihood they will be lost in the 2014 General Election.


MYTH #3: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Their lawsuit to make the State of Colorado follow their own Constitution will derail the recall election!"

Facts:
  1. Most of the arguments about why this lawsuit was a good thing have already been laid out: in my post earlier on the subject, by this great analysis, and in an excellent article today from Media Trackers.  Please read those so I don't have to repeat myself or redo the work of others who have summed it up so well.  The key takeaway, if you don't want to spend the time reading them, is that this lawsuit not just about ballot access, but just as much about eliminating mail-in ballots from this election
  2. Lazy, low-information voters who otherwise wouldn't get off their duffs and vote can't sit in the convenience of their homes and not having mail-in ballots gives the recall proponents a significant advantage.  Incumbents have a much easier time winning with low-information voters.
  3. Without mail-in ballots, it is much harder to cheat in elections.  Worse than uninformed voters, mail=in ballots lend themselves to fraud, such as voters being coerced or otherwise threatened by union thugs, or having their ballots filled out for them.  
What still amazes me is that Republicans are upset about this lawsuit.  In fact, Republican Party Chairman Ryan Call put out a press release parroting the same talking points as John Morse!  That is all shades of screwed up, and should be a wake up call to Republicans everywhere.

REALITY: This is proof positive that Republican apparatchiks no longer care for the Constitution, but push whatever they think will create "victory" (meaning money in their pockets) for them.  No wonder they have been consistently losing in this state since 2004.  Moreover, surprise, surprise--it not only didn't "derail the recall", it actually gave the recall a fighting chance by removing mail-in ballots from the equation.  How about them apples?


MYTH #4: "Those meddling Libertarians!  So they didn't derail the recall, but they did disenfranchise military voters!"

Facts:
  1. You know what... I'll just let Secretary of State Scott Gessler do the talking for me here.  You can find his whole release at this link.
"As someone who served overseas in the Army and consequently missed an election myself, I’m particularly concerned about our military and overseas voters who want to cast ballots. Currently, El Paso County has 645 and Pueblo has 287.

Colorado is ready to serve them.

Last year I deployed a statewide electronic mail ballot delivery system for military and overseas voters. It worked extremely well, contributing to a 65% jump in turnout, even while most states saw a drop.

That system is already at work in the recall elections. The large majority of our military and overseas voters have already signed up for electronic ballot delivery. They have already received ballots. If more candidates qualify, we will work with El Paso and Pueblo to get them new ballots quickly, through electronic ballots, fax, and expedited mail. Forward deployed service members can even radio their votes to their commanders, and we can accept those ballots eight days after the election. Finally, we’ll take additional steps, if necessary." (emphasis added)
REALITY: As Secretary Gessler points out, there are other, better ways of reaching military voters--with electronic ballots (something for which he won an award for in 2012).  No one is disenfranchised, and, in fact, it is now more likely these service men and women will have their vote count, since there was no guarantee they would recieve their mail ballots in time, even though they were sent 30 days in advance (already a violation of UOCAVA standards).  You can also look at the comments on Clear The Bench Colorado's coverage for more on military voting.


MYTH #5: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Maybe they didn't derail the recall or disenfranchise military voters, but with a Libertarian on the ballot, they'll split the vote and ensure Morse stays in office!"

Facts:
  1. As of right now, no Democrat has declared in Senate District 11, and no Libertarian has declared in Senate District 3.
  2. The recall vote is a two part process: first, a yes or no vote on the recall, and then if yes, a vote on the replacement candidate.
REALITY: If there is no Democrat on the ballot in SD11, it would be impossible to "split the vote".  In fact, the more peole you can turn out to vote "yes" on the recall, the greater the likelihood of success.  

Let me repeat that, since it is the most commonly promulgated lie I've heard this entire recall election process: a Libertarian on the ballot not only doesn't split the vote, it actually makes it more likely that Morse gets recalled.

Update: typo in one of my charts fixed--thanks to Kevin J. for the catch!