Colorado Democrats' 'Blueprint' for Last Decade Faces 2010 Campaign Test

Ten years ago Colorado was a red state, from the two U.S. Senate seats down to both chambers of the state Legislature.

If you'd asked anyone back then about the prospects for total reversal, they'd have laughed out loud. And they'd have been wrong.

Colorado Democrats managed what most considered the impossible in the last decade. After election night 2008, they controlled both Senate seats, five of seven congressional seats, the governor's office and both legislative chambers.

In "The Blueprint: How Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)," the strategy behind that success is detailed in a most engaging fashion.



Adam Schrager, a longtime television reporter and probably the best political reporter in the state, teamed up to write the book with former state Rep. Rob Witwer, a lawyer and former legal counsel to the Colorado GOP. "The Blueprint" (Speakers Corner, $15.95, 256 pages) illustrates how Colorado Democrats decided early to focus on the state Legislature. The success they achieved at that level is particularly important in the 2010 election cycle, when the outcome of legislative races around the country will have a huge impact on the 2011 redrawing of congressional and legislative seats.

Here's how they did it:

Action outside the political party. "The Blueprint" drives home the point that campaign finance reform means the party apparatus is no longer the conduit for campaign cash. Instead, independent groups -- often 527s or 501(c)(4)s organized under IRS rules instead of the Federal Election Commission -- drive the agenda. In Colorado, the teachers' union, trade unions and environmental groups joined with legislative leaders, other political strategists and got the . . .

Big money. Ultimately, four wealthy activists agreed to join and finance a game plan designed by their strategists. But they didn't just pool their millions in one pot. Instead, they created . . .

An ever-changing playing field of 527s and other groups to spend money on TV, radio and mail ads in targeted races. The names of the legislative leadership 527s changed almost every year. Lawyers worked closely with the groups to ensure compliance with the laws. And the groups . . .

Coordinated activities. Originally dubbed "the Roundtable," these groups met frequently to discuss strategy and to decide what projects and races to target and finance. And the races they targeted were based on a strategy that emphasized . . .

Winning over ideology. While some of the funders had individual issues important to them, there was no litmus test for candidates supported by the group. In one instance, they backed an unaffiliated candidate in a legislative race he probably would have would have won had he not died in a bicycle accident. Gov. Bill Ritter is an abortion opponent, but he had the groups' support in 2006. They also targeted races where moderate Democrats would trump . . .

Divisive Republicans who won difficult primary races. In June 2004, a Boulder Democrat predicted to me over coffee that his party would win the House in the state General Assembly. Just a few Republican primaries had to go their way, i.e., the most conservative candidate had to win. Democrats had moderates in place who would appeal to independent and moderate GOP voters. To support those candidates, they . . .

Went on the attack, with mail fliers that portrayed the GOP and their candidates as the party of "God, guns and gays" (as in, anti-gay), but also as big spenders and even pigs with tiaras. The attacks started early and were delivered often.

Democrats did win the House that year, surprising Republicans who apparently just didn't see the onslaught coming. And 2004 was just the beginning for the so-called "gang of four" money folks and their collaborators.

In 2006, "the Roundtable" became the Colorado Democracy Alliance. The group began to help create and finance other nonprofit advocacy groups, like Colorado Media Matters, a media watchdog; Colorado Ethics Watch, which filed complaints against public officials (typically Republican); and Colorado Confidential (now Colorado Independent), an online political news site. (Disclosure: I worked for Colorado Confidential as a journalism adviser and occasional blogger in 2006-07, and discussed this book project with Rob Witwer, and thus am among those listed in the book's lengthy acknowledgments.)

The Colorado GOP tried to fight back with a well-financed 527 called Trailhead in 2006, but came up against a gauntlet of legal battles initiated by organizations affiliated with the Alliance. Democrats ended up winning the governor's office and an open U.S. Senate seat.

Two years later, the Colorado model spread to other states. And Colorado played a key role in the election of Barack Obama.

What does it all mean for 2010? Certainly the landscape is markedly different now, given the economy and the backlash generated by Obama's election and policy initiatives. But will potential Tea Party takeovers present problems for the GOP?

"The Right gets mesmerized by personalities," Jon Caldara, who directs the Colorado free-market think tank Independence Institute, told Schrager and Witwer. "Republican donors are too short-sighted and too micromanaging. They don't have a long-term vision, and they keep giving money to candidates instead of organizations that will still be there after the election. Republicans need to learn that Election Day is not the end of the fight."