The Democratic takeover of the State House and State Senate in 2004 -- an objective not achieved for more than four decades and well before the birth a the vast majority of Coloradans -- was a watershed achievement for the State's struggling Democratic Party. As years went by, Democrats' power waned in a state which gradually was becoming more Republican.

This culminated in the evolution of the distribution of registered voters from almost a dead-even split between Democrats and Republicans (with unaffiliated and independent voters still playing a decisive role in most elections) to the point where Republicans not only had almost a 200,000-person edge in registered voters but saw Democratic numbers fall to third place -- after those for unaffiliated and independent voters.

These numbers meant -- and mean today -- that it is a considerable challenge for any Democrat to be elected to a statewide office. The result is that few have succeeded.

When one looks at statewide offices, they are limited in number. The two federal positions are United States Senators. Until Ken Salazar's victory over Pete Coors in 2004, the two positions had been held by Republicans. The statewide constitutional executive offices -- Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Treasurer -- all are held by Republicans. The last Democratic victory for any of these offices without an incumbent was in 1998 (with a successful reelection in 2002) in the election for Attorney General won by Ken Salazar. Democrats lost the elections for all these other positions in 1998 and 2002.

If minor elections are included, the only other statewide Democratic victor was Jared Polis, who won election to the State Board of Education in 2000 by the closest margin in Colorado's history for a statewide race - a mere 90 votes out of more than 1½ million cast. Polis, however, spent more money to win that election -- approximately $1½ million -- than every candidate from every party cumulatively spent in the history of that Board. There are few Democrats who can or will spend that kind of money for such a position (and, given inflation in the political arena, a similarly effective expenditure would easily be $2.5 million today for a volunteer, low-profile position of which more than 90% of the voters are unaware).

So, it's no wonder prospective Democratic candidates are cautious when discussing the possibility of running for statewide office.

---

The 2004 Democratic Takeover
PART 2 OF 5

The 2004 takeover of the Statehouse by Democrats was brilliantly engineered by a group intent on using several tactics to secure victory. First, they organized separate efforts dedicated to the State House, the State Senate, and federal races. Second, they recruited good candidates. Third, they focused on the Republicans' growing arrogance and sense of entitlement. With the concept that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," Democrats were able to focus voters' attention on an Economy which was faltering and a lack of bipartisan leadership while Republicans promoted conservative, social agenda items which had little to do with the major concerns of many Coloradans.

This Republican entitlement phenomenon also manifested itself in how seriously Republicans initially took the Democratic threat -- they didn't. They believed they would prevail in the House and the Senate as they had for decades and did not see any reason to believe change would occur.

Fourth, Democrats ran a "stealth campaign." Few people -- including those in the Press -- understood the scope of the Democrats' effort. And even those who did see what was happening were skeptical of the likelihood of Democrats winning a majority of seats in either chamber. By the time Republican strategists fully comprehended what was happening, there were only a few weeks left in the 2004 campaign and the ability to make changes was difficult. Although additional funds were raised and some adjustments were made, they weren't sufficient to overcome the advantages Democrats enjoyed thanks to the lethargy of their Republican counterparts.

Fifth, Democrats did a superb job of staying "on message" -- promoting a Democratic agenda which focused on kindergarten through High School public education, health care and the need to help Coloradans, the Economy and jobs as well as and a smaller number of traditional Democratic positions and values focused on Higher Education, Senior Citizens, and the Environment. Democrats were able to argue Republicans were not doing the job and they made those arguments convincingly.

Sixth, Democrats decided to add a range of negative campaign techniques and strategies less often seen in Colorado politics but which Democratic strategists believed were being effectively deployed by Republicans for years. These negative tactics had been successful in Colorado and, while not the exclusive province of Republicans, had been rejected by most Democratic candidates. In 2004, however, decisions were made by many candidates and campaigns to "go negative" -- often in a very brutal way. Not surprisingly, the strategy was very effective.

Seventh, perhaps the biggest difference in 2004 was the Democrats' access to money for campaigns. Unlike any other election year in Colorado history, Democrats suddenly had new-found riches on a scale they never had experienced. Four wealthy supporters -- Bighorn Public Policy Center CEO Rutt Bridges, Quark high technology co-founder Tim Gill, Web site high technology entrepreneur Jared Polis, and philanthropist Patricia Stryker (with a combined wealth of approximately $2½ billion) -- gathered and, in a number of ways, found different routes to funnel approximately $5 million into key races.

Recognizing that "Money is the mother's milk of politics," Democratic operatives suddenly were able to answer affirmatively when asked, "Got milk?" in the political arena. This meant supplementary and high quality campaign staff members could be hired, detailed research work could be done, more volunteers could be recruited and organized, top-notch advertisements could be created, millions of additional pieces of direct mail could be sent out, an extra television advertisements could be purchased by the thousands. All of that happened and Democrats won both houses of the General Assembly. The question now is, "How do Democrats repeat their success in 2004?"

---

Setting The Stage -- Can The Democrats Repeat 2004?
PART 3 OF 5

Knowing how difficult it was to win statewide races and the need to have good candidates for such offices has focused Democrats on the upcoming 2006 General Election. Democrats experienced the importance of the Governor's office when they watched Republican Governor Bill Owens veto a record-setting 47 bills during the last session of the General Assembly.

But the Governor's influence went far beyond his veto power. Many pieces of legislation were negotiated or influenced with the Governor's positions in mind. Legislators knew they had to make adjustments to satisfy the Governor on almost every one of the hundreds of bills they considered or else their legislation could face a veto. This meant the Governor's influence was paramount in the first session controlled by the Democrats in decades. And Democrats bowed to that influence -- seeking compromises right from the start which would allow their proposals to survive, even if it meant including requirements they did not want or deleting some which they otherwise would have preferred to keep.

Now Democrats face the complex challenge of keeping control of the State House (where they enjoy a 35 to 30 division) and the State Senate (where the numbers are a much tighter 18 to 17 split) while trying to win the Governor's race.

The Republicans, on the other hand, look at their voter registration advantage and understandably believe they can win at least three additional seats in the House (and take over as the majority party with a minimum one-vote edge -- i.e., 33 to 32). They only need to gain one seat in the State Senate to have their own 18-17 majority and they have every reason to believe they can win the gubernatorial election, given their statewide strength. And this time, they won't be fooled by a "stealth campaign" because they plan to match and exceed the Democrats in tactics and funding.

Republicans are making sure they won't be caught off-guard this year. They already are organizing using much of the Democratic playbook from 2004. Fundraising has begun as has candidate recruitment. The Party is taking the 2006 election very seriously and no longer takes victory for granted. This means 2006 will be a donnybrook like no other seen in recent years as both sides gear up for a battle-to-the-death.

---

Bill Ritter And The Democratic Split...
PART 4 OF 5

One of the most fascinating intrigues has been the Democrats' nomination process for Governor. Former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who has twice won election to the top D.A.'s office in the State, announced his candidacy in early 2005 without much fanfare. Rutt Bridges entered the race and found it wasn't his cup of tea and withdrew in the early Fall. Other major Democrats such as U.S. Representatives Diana DeGette, John Salazar, and Mark Udall as well as U.S. Senator Ken Salazar all declined to run. Given the dearth of recognizable Democratic names, there were few left on the list.

The most prominent name was and remains Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Having won a surprisingly easy election and then having achieved one major accomplishment after another in less than three years, Hickenlooper was the favorite of many Democrats who coveted the Governor's mansion. To date, Hickenlooper has declined to enter the race, despite extraordinary ongoing pressure to do so.

The next most prominent names were Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff and Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald. Fitz-Gerald, the first woman to serve as President of the Senate, decided to not run in the Fall of 2005, leaving Romanoff as the most prominent Democrat who still could challenge Ritter.

Certain Some Democrats were unwilling to unite behind Ritter because he is seen by some as a Pro-Life candidate. He personally opposes abortion -- a political litmus test for many Democrats. The truth is, while he would support certain Pro-Life legislation -- and has stated he would do if given the opportunity -- Ritter also has made it clear he would not take any action to overturn Roe versus Wade (and, as Governor, he wouldn't have the opportunity to take action related to federal legislation or a Supreme Court case anyway). This hasn't pacified a core group of Democratic operatives and they have continued their search for an alternative to Ritter.

It is likely that any viable Democratic candidate who is Pro-Choice would win the Primary Election against Ritter. Western Slope State Representative Gary Lindstrom has announced his candidacy but his Pro-Choice position is unlikely to sway enough Democrats to win a Primary Election simply because few people even know who Lindstrom is. And the Democrats' desire to win the General Election will supersede the Choice issue if an unknown challenger to Ritter is his only opponent.

Nevertheless, with even a moderately-known candidate, it would not be difficult to organize a successful Primary Election campaign around the theme of women's reproductive rights. Such a campaign might secure 80% of the votes of Democratic women as well as more than half of the votes of Democratic men. And the people who vote in a Democratic Primary are likely to be the most active and most liberal members of the Party. That does not bode well for Ritter.

A problem, however, occurs when a prospective liberal candidate looks at the General Election. If he or she runs as a Pro-Choice candidate and makes that the centerpiece of a campaign so as to win the Primary Election, it is likely such a candidate will have difficulties in the General Election as his or her Republican opponent will easily paint the Democrat as a wild-eyed, extreme leftist radical who is out-of-step with mainstream Colorado voters.

So, the abortion and reproductive rights issue can cut a number of ways. The bottomline for Democrats is winning the Governor's office. They may conclude a bloody primary race may not be the wisest path to tread.

---

Is Bill Ritter The Best Nominee?
PART 5 OF 5

Despite concerted efforts by some Democrats to find a Primary Election opponent for former Denver District Attorney and current gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter, others see Ritter as Democrats' best chance to win back the Governor's mansion. Given the need to run candidates with either an incredible personal story (e.g., Ben Campbell, Ken Salazar) or a great political history (e.g., Dick Lamm, Roy Romer), or success at certain levels (e.g., Gary Hart, Tim Wirth) to overcome the Republican's near-200,000 voter registration edge in the State, Ritter may be perfect for the role.

Although a Democrat through and through, Ritter brings a conservative edge to the race. He personally opposes abortion and can appeal to a broader range of non-Democratic voters focused on that issue more than any other Democratic candidate today. He has a "Law and Order" background as the Number One District Attorney in the State. His personal background -- such as growing up on a farm east of Aurora -- allows him to effectively appeal to non-metro Denver and rural voters. And his religious upbringing and solid faith make him a difficult personal target for Republicans to attack.

At the same time, Ritter is not well-known to most voters and has only recently ventured out of the Denver metro area -- his electoral stronghold. Being so strongly associated with Denver will be a barrier he will have to overcome.

The challenge for some Democrats will be to distinguish between the desire to have a candidate who appeals to all Democrats and can win a primary race versus having a candidate who, specifically because he is not 100% solid on every Democratic positions, has the potential to appeal to a broader range of voters and actually win the General Election. This is a tough decision for many Democrats because it involves weighing how much one is willing to compromise certain political and philosophical beliefs in exchange for a better chance at winning an election.

**********************************************

Aaron Harber hosts "The Aaron Harber Show," seen Fridays at 9:00 pm and Sundays at 2:00 pm on PBS Station KBDI-TV Channel 12. Please go to www.HarberTV.com for more information. Send your comments and topic suggestions for both columns and TV shows to Aaron@HarberTV.com. You also may view programs on a 24/7 basis via the “Broadcast Videos” section of the Website. Many of Aaron's columns also are available on the Website on the page entitled “Aaron’s Opinions.” You often can find them in The Colorado Statesman (www.ColoradoStatesman.com) as well as in The Denver Daily News (www.DenverDailyNews.com).