The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado

by Adam Schrager, Rob Witwer

Now with an updated epilogue about the 2010 elections.

This is the inside story of one of the most stunning reversals of political fortune in American history. Four years ago, the GOP dominated politics at every level in Colorado. Republicans held both Senate seats, five of seven congressional seats, the governor’s mansion, the offices of secretary of state and treasurer, and both houses of the state legislature. After the 2008 election, the exact opposite was true: replace the word Republicans with Democrats in the previous sentence, and you have of one the most stunning reversals of political fortune in American history.

This is also the story of how it will happen—indeed, is happening—in other states across the country. In Colorado, progressives believe they have found a blueprint for creating permanent Democratic majorities across the nation. With discipline and focus, they have pioneered a legal architecture designed to take advantage of new campaign finance laws and an emerging breed of progressive donors who are willing to commit unprecedented resources to local races. It’s simple, brilliant, and very effective.

Rob Witwer is a former member of the Colorado House of Representatives and practices law in Denver.

Emmy award–winning journalist Adam Schrager covers politics for KUSA-TV, the NBC affiliate in Denver. Schrager and his family live in the Denver area. He is the author of The Principled Politician: Governor Ralph Carr and the Fight against Japanese Internment

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History

280 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2010

Reviews

[Charles Haywood · Rating 3 out of 5]

“The Blueprint” is well written. But its predictions have now been repeatedly falsified, and it downplays critical elements in its analysis. Therefore, I cannot recommend it except as a narrow and dated historical analysis of Colorado politics in the middle of the last decade.

Schrager and Witwer (full disclosure—I know Witwer slightly, or did many years ago, and think highly of him) identify elements of a strategy adopted by left-wing political strategists to take over state and federal offices in Colorado. In sum, this strategy involved (a) finding and welding together a small group of left-wing billionaires; (b) getting those billionaires to directly fund numerous separate pressure groups, which all collectively worked to get viable Democrats (not necessarily left-wing) elected; and (c) coordinating such activity for maximum impact with existing Democratic power centers, such as teachers’ unions. This strategy is the so-called “Colorado Model,” resulting, in 2008, in Democratic dominance of the state.

In the authors’ telling, the spark for this plan was the earlier circulation by Democratic activist Rob Stein of a PowerPoint presentation called “The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix.” This presentation apparently (it is not available to the public anywhere) describes how a network of monied conservatives (Coors, Scaife, and a few others) created a think-tank infrastructure (Heritage Foundation, Cato, AEI, etc.), which then fed conservative-leaning data and points to media outlets. Stein’s idea, which he apparently shopped around for years, was that the Left should do the same, but focus on elections, not message. Moreover, the Left should elect Democrats, without bothering overmuch about whether they were left-wing enough, on the (sound) presumption they would act reliably left-wing in office.

(Stein’s exaltation of the power of the conservative message machine strikes me, knowing quite a bit myself about the Great Right-Wing Conspiracy, as a gross exaggeration. First, messaging success is not electoral success. While the Heritage Foundation, AEI, etc., contribute to the intellectual underpinnings of conservatism, they (by law) have nothing to do with electoral campaigns. They are not a counterpoint to the Colorado Model, and the Colorado Model is not a reaction against them. Rather, they are themselves a reaction to the dominant leftist ideological messaging and power centers, many entrenched for the past sixty or seventy years, which are vastly more powerful and all of which formally or informally coordinate. These include all major universities, the federal bureaucracy, essentially all major “charitable” foundations such as the Ford Foundation, all major tech corporations (such as Google, which has been an active participant in recent elections on the Democratic side), and, of course, the entire mainstream media apparatus that solely determines what constitutes “news.” That conservatives managed to create a messaging network that provides a counterpoint to the Borg-like power of the leftist coalition is certainly admirable, but not indicative of real power.)

But in any case, whatever the spark for the Colorado Model, it was focused on electoral success, with the (privately) declared goal of massive social change, hidden by a (publicly) declared goal of centrist pragmatism, focusing on such non-partisan issues as education. Stein correctly identified why he cared, which is the same reason the architects of the Colorado Model cared. “The reason is it so important to control the [federal] government is because the government is the source of enormous power.” The Colorado Model had the same goal of grasping power, just limited, in the beginning, to Colorado.

What unabashedly drove (and drives) these rich leftists was leftist ideology. The four billionaires the book focuses on are Rutt Bridges, Tim Gill, Jared Polis, and Pat Stryker. Not coincidentally, three of the four made their money in computer software (the fourth, Pat Stryker, made no money—she inherited it). Also not coincidentally, two (Gill and Polis) are gay, as is Stryker’s brother—this resulted, although Schrager and Witwer don’t focus on it, in the group prioritizing social issues in their politics.

Nothing in the Colorado Model seems particularly original. Money and discipline; combined with tech savvy; organization; demanded accountability; a weak, divided, unprepared opposition; and the constant cooperation of the media, can always take any political group far. This is not news. Schrager and Witwer go into great, and interesting, detail about the personalities and specific actions involved. But nothing done was truly original, despite Schrager and Witwer’s best efforts to portray it as such. And Schrager and Witwer don’t adequately focus on two key elements of the Colorado Mode that DO have broader implications: the role of using the judicial system as an attack vehicle, and the role of the media.

The first key element, which is addressed in the book to some degree but not put forward as a key element of the Colorado Model, is the deliberate and explicit tactic of using malicious, trumped-up civil lawsuits and criminal complaints to bankrupt, stun, tie up and harass opponents. This tactic is viable because most lawyers lean left and usually have either lots of time or lots of money (and the same reasons largely foreclose the tactic to conservatives). And this tactic works particularly well when the targets are individuals with little money, a fear of lawsuits and criminal complaints, and reputations to maintain—in other words, it works well on most conservatives. (Reputational harm is particularly damaging to conservatives, who are less likely to derive their livelihood and social status from their political activity, and are therefore surrounded by non-political types to whom a lawsuit or criminal complaint is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.) Finally, this tactic is the most pernicious, because it (deliberately) undermines the rule of law, an endeavor, if successful, that never ends well and usually ends in blood.

The second key element is the essential role of the mainstream, supposedly neutral, television and print media. These acted as reliable allies of the Colorado Model (as they do of any left-of-center political movement), including deliberately and constantly broadcasting and amplifying all of the numerous fake civil and criminal charges. And, of course, they acted their usual role of determining “what the news is,” always to benefit the progenitors of the Colorado Model, which is something that conservative domination of the commentary media cannot resist or counter.

Schrager and Witwer seem to treat these two elements as the natural order of things, not as key aspects of the Colorado Model, but that’s an incorrect analysis. Without these things, the Colorado Model would have been a total flop. Yes, the money and organization were also important, but not sufficient. These two things are the real danger and challenge to conservatives, not just money and organization.

As to their prescriptions, Schrager and Witwer are Republicans. The point of their book is to be warning and a call to action. They seem to think that conservatives should adopt their own Colorado Model. But that’s not sensible, for a variety of reasons. First, as I discuss below, Democratic efforts to achieve electoral success outside the Presidency, frequently through analogs of the Colorado Model, have been a total failure since 2008. Second, even if money were the proven key to success, there are not enough conservative rich people. Very few billionaires are conservative. Some may be Republican, and some, like Sheldon Adelson, donate a lot to politicians. But for the most part, rich Republicans are not driven by ideology, like the leftist billionaires behind the Colorado Model. They want political success, in the “establishment” mold, and they want a friendly environment for business (which is typically the opposite of the free market), but they are not out to push social issues important to most conservatives, such as curtailing abortion, limiting illegal immigration, or preserving and enhancing gun rights. Republican billionaires, to the extent they exist, may give to individual politicians, to achieve influence and flatter their own egos. They are unlikely to give to a broad range of ideological pressure groups.

Therefore, the real lesson for conservatives of the Colorado Model isn’t that they should, like an inverse Diogenes, scour the world for sympathetic billionaires. The first real lesson is that the Right should focus on de-funding elements of the Left’s programs, many of which are funded by the taxpayers. You can’t de-fund billionaires, but you can de-fund their critical allies, like teachers’ unions (as Scott Walker has so brilliantly done in Wisconsin). Second, they should punch back twice as hard with respect to lawsuits and criminal complaints, by demanding fee-shifting to impose the costs of frivolous lawsuits on those who bring them, and by stripping rogue prosecutors and judges of immunity and pursuing them personally with extreme aggression, including with appropriate (not trumped-up) criminal charges for past behavior (such as the recent vicious attacks on conservatives in Wisconsin). The key here is increasing costs for those who undermine the rule of law, who now not only don’t bear costs, but are rewarded and lionized.

These things are necessary in order to prevent bad behavior by the Left and allow a fair chance for public policies to be voted on, and perhaps even to preserve civil society. But they are not necessary to prevent the replication of the Colorado Model, which is Schrager and Witwer’s fear and predicted outcome. For that prediction has been totally falsified since the publication of this book. While the Colorado Model had success, in Colorado in 2008, the subsequent impact has been zero. In Colorado itself the pendulum has swung back, although not to total Republican dominance. But that’s probably because Colorado’s demography has changed, not due to the lasting success of the Colorado Model. And in the rest of the country, the Republicans now have near total dominance at every level other than the Presidency, with the exception of a few states (most notably California).

So, for example, Schrager and Witwer conclude the book by warning that “Wisconsin and Texas [are] in the Crosshairs.” They profile the Texas Democratic Trust, whose stated goal is to “take control of the Texas state legislature by 2010.” But its website, as of October 2015, is a blank page with the text, “I am host a16c.” The Texas state legislature has a 2/3 majority of Republicans in each house and a Republican governor. Both Senators are Republican, as are 70% of the congressional Representatives. In Wisconsin, the Republican majority across the board is similarly overwhelming. Yes, it may be (or it may not be) that the Republicans will have difficulty getting the Presidency. It may be (or it may not be) that demographic changes will erode the current Republican dominance. But what is definitely not true is that the Colorado Model has had any legs. Even using illegitimate tactics, even with total dominance of the new-setting media, gay billionaires simply can’t buy everything. That’s good news for America.

[Marshaferz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'll freely admit that I read this book because one of the authors is a friend of mine from law school. I fully expected to hate it - for no other reason that I have never been much interested in politics. I assumed that no matter how good the writing was (and knowing Rob, it was going to be good) the subject matter was either going to put me to sleep or hopelessly confuse me. I assumed this would be "inside baseball" for a sport about which I knew nothing and cared little.

I was VERY pleasantly surprised, and I'm here to tell you that this book is fascinating. The authors lay out a case that is largely free from their own commentary - they say what happened, and how, and they make it read like a detective story. When I was done reading, I found it hard to imagine that no one before Colorado 2004 had tried the strategy in this book; it seems utterly inevitable now, and yet the book makes it clear how groundbreaking the strategy was.

Schrager and Witwer lay out the story and the evidence in a clear and compelling way, without arguing that the Democrats' stunning takeover of Colorado was good or bad - just that it happened, that it was no accident, and that it's already being replicated all over the country. Even with my lack of any real base knowledge of behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, I found the story interesting and easy to follow. It changed my understanding of how political races are fought and won, and about campaign finance (and campaign finance reform legislation). It will change the way I think about the news for a long time to come.

Every American should read this book in order to understand what is going on RIGHT NOW in American politics. More importantly, the education in this book comes in a very well-written, enjoyable form. You won't have to suffer through this civics lesson - you'll actually like it.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't overthink it

From the title of the book, one might surmise, as I did, that The Blueprint is an emerging political strategy involving the coordination of competing interests under the Democrats' "Big Tent."

Indeed, one of the difficulties in building coalitions along the lines of race, gender, sexual orientation and more is that these groups' interests are not necessarily aligned all the time. Managing internal conflicts effectively is an interesting challenge, and one which, if mastered, would allow the party to dominate the political landscape.

Neither this book, nor "The Blueprint" it describes involves any of these things. In fact, it's irritatingly simplistic.

Here is the tl;dr: A handful of liberal millionaires and billionaires in Colorado took advantage of changes to campaign finance laws to dump millions of dollars into local elections, and simply outspend Republicans on TV spots and mailers, most of it negative. They pooled their money and funneled it through multiple 527s and existing liberal non-profits to mask the funding source and mitigate against lawsuits.

That's it. That's the whole blueprint.

The book goes into a detailed play by play of how a cabal of 1%ers, known as The Roundtable, formed and decided to turn the state blue. It covers how they systematically targeted Republicans throughout the state, and took a moneyball approach to local elections. In many cases, this meant targeting legislators who were actually well-liked and good at their jobs, but just playing for the wrong team. For example:

> Although internally The Roundtable described [GOP candidate] Johnson as "a moderate," their eventual strategy would focus on painting her as an extreme conservative. This was necessary, a Roundtable memo noted, because the Democratic challenger, Green, was not "a very strong candidate." "We're going to have to put all the focus on Johnson," they concluded. That meant going negative.

After the major success of this "strategy" in 2004, the book covers how the Roundtable (which rebranded as CoDA) dealt with the Republican response. When Republicans formed their own group, Trailhead, to respond to the attacks, CoDA simply buried them in frivolous lawsuits. The head of that organization commented:

> "Every single lawsuit that was filed against me or against Trailhead was defeated, dismissed, or withdrawn. These were designed to intimidate, they were designed to distract, and to assassinate character. That's what they were about."

The attack ads and dark money strategy didn't really change either:

> At one point, [Republican candidate] Knoedler said lobbyists told him a Democratic poll showed he had pulled even with [Democratic candidate] Boyd in September. "So CoDA rebudgeted. You know, for them it's not how much money do we have, it's like how much money does it take. It's a totally different question," he said. "The mail just started pouring in."

Regardless of political leanings, I imagine most people would agree that allowing a small number of wealthy individuals to buy elections is not good for a republic. That it can be done in secret, and without transparency into the financial interests of the wealthy donors, presents ample opportunity to subvert our democracy for the benefit of a handful of people. Former governor Bill Owens is quoted in the book as saying:

> While many factors played a part, Owens pointed to one in particular. "Before campaign finance reform was passed, people tried to use money to influence an individual legislator here or there. Nowadays, big donors just buy them by the dozen."

To me, that's the big takeaway. I'm not impressed with the so-called savvy of people buying elections through attacks ads and misinformation. If anything, this is a wake up call for just how badly we need campaign finance reform.

In summary, the book is relatively short and the prose is very accessible. From a technical standpoint, it's well written and well researched, and presented in a simple narrative format. What made it drag for me was the lack of any compelling strategy or tactics. What is The Blueprint? Millions of dollars in attack ads funded by 1%ers. For almost 300 pages.

[Robert Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Obviously I, like most readers, have my political views, but I’m going to keep them out of my review here. And that’s reasonable and appropriate because the authors of this political history also did a remarkable job of keeping their own political views out of their book. Throughout its pages the book quotes, and indeed is ultimately praised by, Democrats and Republicans alike. Rather than arguing which side the reader should take, the book instead presents a history of how Colorado, once a Republican stronghold, then a “purple” state for a while, ultimately became, in recent years, one of the most reliably Democratic states in the nation. It wasn’t just shifting demographics nor was it that the voters changed their minds because they read good arguments. It was a specific set of campaign activities chronicled in detail within these pages.

Why should we care enough to read a book like this? Well, if one happens to be a Democrat, I suspect one would probably like to learn how the party essentially took control of Colorado so the same strategy might be adapted to other states. And if one is, on the other hand, a Republican, one probably wants to understand enough to PREVENT the same strategy from being used again, or to adapt it to support more conservative causes. Regardless of ideology, though, I think we all ought to take an interest in our history and that includes such recent history as this.

As to the quality of the book itself, I have no real complaints. It’s well-written, engaging, and impressively researched. It really does tell, essentially, the whole story of Colorado’s political shift. The only caveat I’d add is that the book was published some fifteen years ago as of this review and has not been updated. So while it’s correct and accurate as far as it goes, political scholars wondering about developments since 2010 will have to find other sources. Nevertheless, I’d consider it something of a must-read book particularly but not exclusively for those in Colorado.

[Brittany · Rating 5 out of 5]

I work for one of the many progressive organizations in Colorado that constitute the Colorado Model. Reading this book filled in the gaps of my knowledge about Colorado's big name progressive donors, the landscape of progressive organizations, and the inner workings of CoDA and the Roundtable. I walked away from the book: 1) proud that I had wound up in Colorado when there are resources to fight for progressive wins, 2) proud that I had wound up at one of the many progressive orgs in Colorado fighting for this kind of change and 3) proud that I had wound up in progressive fundraising.

[Angie Ox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend. Democrats and Republicans alike can learn from how the red states, specifically Colorado, changed their political landscape to blue. Fascinating. It was frustrating to hear some of the Democrat’s strategies, but they truly just out-smarted, and out-worked the Republicans. It’s no different than party politics for generations - it’s the modern day version. Very informative and eye-opening. Appreciated that it was objectively written.

[Laura Skladzinski · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was pretty dense and hard to get through. I felt like the authors were name dropping every person, date, and fact like a term paper, rather than telling a cohesive story that emphasized the main points with examples. Interesting subject matter, but really not a compelling read.

[Bruce Shellenbaum · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very easy to read. Seems like a who-done-it

I’m a libertarian, not beholden to any political party. This book describes a genius plan executed near perfectly.
Will Colorado be better for it is anyone’s guess.

[Clayton Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent piece of journalism

If Republicans want to keep their majority after Trump’s 2024 red wave they ought to read this text to understand the importance of building an infrastructure instead of a short lived majority.

[Will Atkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dated, but still valid.

[Jan · Rating 5 out of 5]

As relevant today as when it was written. Fascinating and a warning to either party who takes for granted their position of power.

[Mitchell Zufelt · Rating 3 out of 5]

adequate

[De · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sad… CO voted on things the 527 sent out that were lies and this book celebrates it. God will judge us all for our stand against truth.

[Luis Joy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend if you work in politics or are curious about how campaigns started changing in the 21st century. A bit dated since it's from 2010, but any political junkie will swallow this up

[B Detes · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is MUST READING for EVERY CONSERVATIVE considering running for political office. Replication is the key, and infighting/political litmus tests are the recipe for handing victory to liberals.

[Watson Crenshaw · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really informative, well-written book on how to change the political makeup of states. Schrager did a spectacular job providing background, accurate information, and the people behind what made Colorado go for the Democrats. I think this is a must read for political activities and those who are wanting to help change the political makeup of their own state!

[Daniel Burton · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you walk away with nothing from this book, and from this review, it should be this: by using data, organization, and money, there are political operatives out there manipulating how voters think about their candidates, and not necessarily with accurate information.

Without a doubt, the book is what it purports to be: a blueprint for the Democratic strategy to successfully turn Republican leaning states, districts and offices over to Democrats. And it's already worked. Democrats, in what was in 2002 one of the reddest states of country, now control the state House and Senate, both US Senate seats, the Governors mansion, and five of the seven Congressional seats. Further, as the authors, Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer, argue, it's a plan that is being exported to other states, and even being used nationally, to take down Republicans everywhere.

So what's the secret? How do Democrats turn a conservative state into a left leaning Democratic stronghold? Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman, summed it up nicely:

"It doesn't matter if you are running for the state legislature or the president of the United States. Brilliant organization, unlimited resources, and the effective use of technology all in the hands of bright people who are driven more than just simple ideology create the most formidable campaign strategy imaginable."

And that's exactly what happened. Conceived as a project by several millionaires--and not just your garden variety millionaires, but including dot-com millionaires with a penchant for data manipulation and a surplus of cash--the Colorado story is that of a small cadre of intelligent individuals bypassing the traditional political parties to orchestrate an ambush on Republican office holders that flipped Colorado to the Democrats. Using huge influxes of cash channeled through shadowy 527 non-profits, Democrats used data collection methods to target vulnerable and marginally successful Republicans with vicious mailers and only marginally true television advertising. Republicans never saw it coming, and it wasn't until almost six years later that they started to pick up the game. Using a method of directing donations to candidates and non-profits categorized as 527s under the IRS tax code, Democrats were able to hide the actual amount of money being spent to attack Republicans, pool from wealthy donors nationwide, and target only a few swing votes to turn elections in several states.

It's a brilliantly executed strategy, and one I am sure that every politico wishes he had conceived. The tools are available to anyone who will organize them and that is willing to raise and find the money.

As for a read, the book moves fast and feels like an extended magazine piece, full of quotes and interesting anecdotes. However, it's probably better designed for a political wonk than for the average reader.

As I stated at the outset, the scary aspect of the book is the ability of these operatives, infusing enormous amounts of money, deft and witty campaign messaging (read: attack ads and mailers that smear candidates), and highly organized grassroots management, can, and are, winning elections, and not necessarily on the merits of their candidates.

Fascinating read. Pick it up. Or borrow it from me.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the 2008 story of how in four years Colorado was systematically turned from a red to a blue state. This is partially about the power of money, $3.6m was raised, of which $2.5m came from just four people (Jared Polis, Pat Stryker, Ruth Bridges and Tim Gill). This is partially about the power of vote canvassing, gathering voter data, tracking voter interests and issues, and customizing direct mail and phone calls. However for me this is mostly about how fickle political sentiments are and how easily they can be manipulated by concentrated and targeted efforts.

The democratic campaign didn't appeal to the integrity and reason of voters, instead it systematically attacked opponents in a smear campaign to undermined them. It established a network of organizations to provide a permanent, far-reaching progressive infrastructure to continuously shape perspectives. The Colorado Democracy Alliance represented a loosely affiliated network whose decisions were made by a board of directors, directing external funding and information strategically to targeted organizations based on four priority areas: ideas, media, leadership and civic engagement. Criminal complaints were launched with reckless abandon to weigh down opponents and scare away their donors.

This 'blueprint' may have worked in Colorado, and is making its impression nationally, but I hope it does not shape the future of politics. As noted for one legislative race: "As hard as both had worked, the reality was that Betty Boyd and Matt Knoelder were simply bit players in their own campaigns. They could have taken six month vacations, left the country entirely, and most voters in their district wouldn't have known the difference. It was almost as if neither of them existed as people, but as biographies to be massaged, amplified, and distorted by powerful outsiders in slick campaign mailers an hard-edged television advertisements."

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I waited entirely too long to read this and it would have been far more revelatory and timely if I'd gotten off my duff earlier. That's on me.

Don't let it be on you, too.

_The Blueprint_ is a fast read. Short, inviting, well-told. In brief chapters, it documents how nice-sounding concepts like campaign finance reform allowed plutocrats to buy a state, through coordination of "non-profits" whose sole charitable purpose was to transform a partisan environment. It also documents the institutions involved in the effort to "scale-up" that model nationally.

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

How to review a book intentionally written for a narrow audience that you're just a bit on the outside of? My 3 stars split this difference: This book is probably 4.5 stars for the Colorado political aficionados it is written for, and 1.5 stars for those outside it. It's essentially an extension of what would be a long Sunday Denver Post feature. It does a great, thorough job of chronicling a political transition (how Colorado's state government turned from red to blue) in a way that I've never seen done elsewhere. In that sense the book is of tremendous value.

I can't say it's a book I'd want to read again, even though I'm curious enough about Colorado politics to have picked up the book in the first place. It's written in a dry repertorial style, it's repetitive, and even at 200 smallish, generously spaced pages, it felt like it would never end. But these should not be seen as criticisms relative to the kind of book it aims to be: it's not meant to be compared to 'good yarns,' and I have to think it achieves what the well-intentioned, scrupulous authors set out to achieve. In that sense, let's call it '3 stars-plus.'

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a remarkable piece of investigative journalism. As the core actors in the remaking of Colorado politics repeatedly told themselves, this is a story of how a small number of determined people can make a huge difference in the direction of public events, especially if they have huge fortunes at their disposal (I added the last phrase).

The book quotes numerous people on both sides of the Colorado contest that campaign finance reform has taken control of campaigns away from candidates and parties and put it in the hands of obscure, not-tranparent non-profits which essentially have no contribution limits or reporting requirements. As a Colorado College professor is quoted, "Campaign finance reform has been a total failure."

Anyone who is unhappy with the polarization of politics and with negative campaigning should read this book to get a glimpse at the future.

[Emily Schatz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Other people's thoughts on this book appear to be much clearer than mine, so I'll be brief.

Not being a policy wonk, I could usually not read this for more than three chapters at a time. I have little taste for smear campaigning and this book tells the ongoing story of its ascendancy. Still, it reads like a tightly-woven courtroom novel, telling how a few creative thinkers and big donors in Colorado flipped the state to reflect their political priorities and are exporting their model. In that aspect it's quite riveting. It's been useful for me, as a newbie in the policy world, in understanding my field. It's balanced, insightful, and eminently practical, but it doesn't create an inspiring picture of what our electoral politics is becoming.

[Raja · Rating 1 out of 5]

The strategic deployment of cynical falsehoods only gets you so far

I was hoping this would make me feel better about the impending electoral massacre on November 4, but instead it just reminded me of the gulf between the art of telling people what they want to hear to get elected and actually giving them what they want when you are.

[Todd Kruse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well worth reading by students in political science and the average voter since the model described in this book for driving a political revolution is very interesting yet I would say it is nothing unique to human history - it was simply well-implemented.

[Katrina Jørgensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I hated every page of this book, it made me angry---and that is why every Republican should read it.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this recommendation from Molly Fitzpatrick! Fascinating behind-the-scenes look at progressive organizing and spending around politics in Colorado.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some excellent ideas, but it's far from concise.

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really great, though dismal, look at what the modern political landscape looks like. It is an interesting glimpse into the strategy and methodology.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting and thought provoking. This book almost makes me want to move to Colorado. Won courtesy of Goodreads Giveaway.

[Dalton · Rating 5 out of 5]

What makes this book so worthwhile is the commentary. Or lack there of. The authors manage to perfectly lay out the facts of the elections in Colorado between 2004-2008 as realistically and unbiasedly as possible. There was hardly a moment when I felt the text leaned left or right. It just defined the political landscape in Colorado during this period of time. A brisk, informative, and fascinating read for anyone interested in politics or the mechanics of local and state elections.