The race will pit Lewis against incumbent Mayor Mike Johnston, who was elected in 2023 and has said he intends to run for a second term. She joins several other mayoral challengers, including repeat progressive candidate Lisa Calderón.

Lewis, who was endorsed by the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America when she ran for council in 2023, may be hoping to ride the momentum of that group’s recent successes in the city. DSA member Melat Kiros stunned the nation when she defeated longtime U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the Democratic primary election to represent Colorado’s 1st Congressional District, which consists mostly of Denver voters, on June 30.

Kiros joined a across the country who have defeated more moderate Democrats in recent months or have active challenges pending. It’s not yet clear whether the Denver DSA will endorse Lewis in her mayoral bid.

Attempts to reach Lewis for comment on Friday were unsuccessful. Late Friday afternoon, she posted on Instagram.

“I would be lying if I didn’t tell y’all, I am absolutely terrified,” she said. “And also, I am absolutely in such gratitude to be in a space to be able to make this journey, in this moment, with community — to make sure we raise the standard of what����ap possible in our communities and what we should be expecting from our government.”

Lewis had teased her announcement by creating a new Instagram account for her campaign earlier in the week, under the handle , and that withheld the office she was going to run for next.

She was elected to represent Denver’s District 8, which consists of much of northeast Denver, including Central Park, Park Hill and Montbello, in 2023. Her term doesn’t end until mid-2027, but since she can’t concurrently run for reelection to that seat, her decision to run for mayor means she won’t serve another term in that role.

Before joining the council, Lewis served as an elected director for the Regional Transportation District and as vice president at the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless.

Lewis has been one of the most progressive voices on the left-leaning council. She has helped shape several major council decisions, including recent municipal sentencing changes, a ban on law enforcement using facial coverings and the city ending a contract with the Salvation Army. She has also made a point of calling out every instance in which the city has reached a legal settlement over police misconduct, reading out a total of all taxpayer dollars that have been used to pay out those settlements each year.

Johnston told The Denver Post last year that he planned to run for reelection, but he hasn’t yet formally filed for the position. A spokesman for Johnston sent out a statement Friday in response to Lewis’ campaign.

“Mayor Johnston has taken on Denver’s toughest challenges—and delivered,” said Jon Ewing. “In just three years, his administration has reduced street homelessness to historic lows, dramatically reduced violent crime and auto theft, and stood up to Donald Trump’s attacks on Denver’s values. There is more work ahead, and Mayor Johnston will keep fighting alongside Denverites to make our city more affordable, vibrant, and full of opportunity for everyone who calls it home.”

Eight other people have filed paperwork to run, including Calderón, who has run for mayor in the two previous elections.

Re: “Trump and Peters declare America’s democracy dead,” July 12 editorial

Your recent piece on Tina Peters read less like measured journalism and more like a coordinated effort to smear a county clerk who dared question the machinery of elections — while a 70-year-old lady spent over 600 days in jail.

It began with the April 6, 2021, Mesa County municipal election. Before official results were tallied at 7 p.m., a candidate received an eerily precise victory call from her campaign manager. Not psychic hotline stuff — just enough to raise eyebrows for the clerk responsible for certifying the results. Tina Peters started asking questions. Suspicion isn’t a crime when your job is ensuring elections are verifiably trustworthy.

She was preserving federal records per her oath (Supremacy Clause). Courts rejected full immunity, but the state-federal tension remains. In 2026, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld her convictions but threw out the sentence, ruling the judge improperly punished her protected speech. A 9-0 Supreme Court precedent backs this: You can’t crank up penalties simply because someone won’t stop talking. Notably, she was never charged with breaching or destroying records. She was fulfilling preservation duties during the “Trusted Build” update.

Elections thrive on verifiable trust. Questioning the process — especially when oddities appear —shouldn’t turn someone into Public Enemy #1. The Denver Post can keep its narrative, but courts and federal complaints keep revealing real tensions worth honest debate. With transparency and scrutiny, we can strengthen trust in our elections moving forward. Brighter chapters are possible.

Brad Hackman, Lakewood

So Trump declares that mail-in ballots and voting machines are rigged so Democrats can win elections. Why hasn’t anyone confronted Trump that he doesn’t declare the same thing when Republicans win, including himself?!  And do the MAGA people not see the irony in that?!  I wonder if Tina Peters can look herself in the mirror without seeing her nose grow while continuing these lies and atrocities.

Marcia Murphy, Centennial

This is in response to the lengthy, excellent editorial on the almost completely flawless way that CO runs its election. It was very well explained.

But I am still confused as to why everyone seems to ignore the fact that in Mesa County, President Trump won 68% of the vote. How is that not critical to proving that Tina Peters is nothing but a scam artist. What was she looking for? How could that percentage be nothing but nearly total victory for Trump when we now call a 15-point victory a near landslide? She wanted to be MAGA royalty and thanks to our governor, she has now achieved it.

Judith Pettibone, Denver

The editorials published by The Post, while reliably expressing an opinion left of center, can also on occasion, reflect a strategic pragmatism.

Sunday’s offering was no such occasion.

The bloated-font headline, “Trump and Peters declare America’s democracy dead,” reeks of the leering hyperbolic headlines of social media that rarely deliver on their promise but scream anyway. Using the dense and over-the-top Trump post on his Truth Social (that’s so unlike him), re: rigged elections as a jumping-off point, The Post makes an enormous leap of faith in the headline that he declared “democracy dead”, but he did no such thing.

He didn’t then, and as far as a Google search goes, he never has. What he did was chum for outrage by saying voting machines were rigged, and you bit and delivered, big time. His attempts to undermine public confidence in elections are tired and ineffective, even to supporters like myself.

Our democracy will survive, even continue to thrive, despite who occupies the White House.

If, as you asserted, you are “exhausted” with countering these stale and benign accusations, here’s a virtuous piece of advice: stop doing that. And while you’re at it, stop mimicking the trolling websites on social media with desperate headline-hype to attract clicks. It’s beneath you.

Jon Pitt, Golden

It����ap confusing. Just last month, President Trump and many of his media supporters made (unfounded) claims of fraud and predicted the imminent collapse of the electoral system as vote counting in California stretched to days after primary Election Day and his preferred candidate for Los Angeles for mayor fell short of the final ballot. This month, I haven’t heard a peep about the fallibility of vote counting as the GOP primary election stretched to nine days and the more establishment gubernatorial candidate lost her early lead to an outsider. One might infer there was an ulterior motive in claiming fraud in the first place.

Randy Livingston, Denver

Rampant fraud did plague Colorado’s primary election, just not how Trump and Tina Peters might claim. Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s office failed to get its updated election instructions posted clearly on all county election office websites. Consequently, an estimated 75% of voters were not officially informed, in a timely and non-partisan way, how to obtain and vote a Unity Party ballot. Only Republican or Democratic ballots and their instructions were automatically mailed to voters in the June primary.

Additionally, news media such as KUNC, KUSA, and the Colorado Sun, excluded Unity Party candidates from forums or voter guides where “all candidates for the same office” were required to be invited. That had the “effect of favoring…a group of candidates”, namely Democrats and Republicans, in violation of IRS or FCC regulations. So, the election was not “free and fair.” Attorney General Phil Weiser is responsible for enforcing rules to ensure “fair” elections, but he and Marx benefited from an “unfair” election.

Had voters been properly informed, the “fair” election results might have favored Kirkmeyer. That speculation is unknowable. However, claims of election fraud due to misrepresentation or omission of critical acts are easily knowable and provable. They’re neither “outlandish claims” nor “isolated incidents”.

Should Weiser and Griswold be disqualified? Should the election be nullified and run again – legally and fairly? Do violating news outlets need to lose their tax-exempt status or FCC licenses? Colorado’s “gold standard” election integrity is at stake. The primary election needs an unbiased investigation and accountability.

Jeff Peckman, Englewood

Time to re-evaluate the wolf reintroduction

Re: “On the front lines,” July 12 news story

Having read many articles regarding the wolf reintroduction program in Colorado, I am wondering if this program is producing any positive results. It seems that millions of dollars are being spent on hiring 18 range riders, compensating ranchers and farmers for their loss of livestock and herding dogs, as well as the cost of obtaining and tracking wolves.

Now, after so many years since the initial reintroduction program began, have we as taxpayers and interested parties gained any real advantages from this program? It seems to me that the problems encountered have overwhelmed any potential advantages. Also, why doesn’t Colorado Parks and Wildlife conduct a study to evaluate this program? All concerned, taxpayers, supporters, opponents and government officials need to know if this program is worth all the effort that has been put into it.

James Sebben, Minturn

I read with dismay the numerous articles commenting on the hardship ranchers must endure because of the introduction of wolves to Colorado. The default position in all of these articles is that ranchers have more rights than other people, in that they must be compensated for losses due to predation.

It would be useful to augment this point of view by exploring the premise that cattle ranching is a good thing and must be protected. To me, it is the same as dog meat farming, at one time prevalent in Asian countries.  There is fundamentally no difference between farming dogs for meat and raising cattle.  The only cultural difference is that Western cultures revere dogs but consider cattle a meal in waiting.

Just as dog meat farmers are abandoning their former way of making a living and developing new livelihoods, the same can happen to cattle ranchers.  I find their practices equally abhorrent and unworthy of protection.

Claire Moulden, Thornton

No to gerrymandering, but Colorado is a long way from competitive districts

Re: “Colorado Supreme Court just saved us the shame of making a mistake the size of Texas or California,” July 12 opinion column

I agree with Krista Kafer when she says in her Sunday op-ed that Coloradans should leave the process of redistricting to the newly created Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission.

But I don’t agree that their actions thus far have been true to their mission. The wording is clear enough. “The 12-member bipartisan commission is obligated by the state Constitution to maximize the number of competitive districts and may not protect a political party or an incumbent.” But then, as Krista states, “The Commission created four Democratic-majority seats, three Republican-majority seats, and one competitive district.” That����ap right. One competitive district. How is that “maximizing the number of competitive districts?

Colorado’s congressional districts are not competitive. They generally still favor candidates from one party over another. Just look at the data from the 2024 election. While Gabe Evans, a Republican, won Congressional District 8 by just about 2,500 votes and Jeff Hurd, also a Republican, won Congressional District 3 by just about 19,800 votes, the rest of our districts clearly favored one party over another.

Jeff Crank, a Republican, won Congressional District 5 by 50,000 votes. Lauren Boebert, a Republican, won District 4 by 52,000 votes. Brittany Petterson, a Democrat, won District 7 by 60,000 votes. Jason Crow, a Democrat, won District 6 by 70,000 votes. Joe Neguse, a Democrat, won District 2 by 164,000 votes. And the venerable Diana DeGette, a Democrat, won District 1 by 190,000 votes!

Based on the data, the State of Colorado cannot say that it����ap done a good job of making our congressional elections more competitive because they have not. There is a lot more work to do.

Mike Dubrovich, Parker

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

That is roughly how much was spent on all of Colorado’s competitive primaries for statewide and federal office — and almost all of it went to influence Democrat-vs.-Democrat contests as voters picked who would represent the party in November’s election, according to an analysis by The Denver Post. Millions more went to down-ballot races, such as local legislative races.

The rain from the proverbial storm of cash poured down in the form of candidate mailers, door knockers, and TV and digital ads, and in less apparent campaign infrastructure and polls. The vast majority of the money went directly to campaigns and supported direct messaging, staffing and other expenses of running for office.

But more than a third — almost $25 million — flooded the races through super PACs and other outside groups that approach politics with different levels of opacity.

The money also didn’t do much to predict eventual winners. Four of the most-monied candidates seeking statewide or federal offices won their primaries. Four others lost.

Paul Teske, a political scientist at the University of Colorado Denver, said it can be tough to tease out how much of a difference money can make in a campaign, especially if spending between candidates is in the same ballpark. But the amount this time also seems striking, even if there isn’t an immediate apples-to-apples comparison to prior election years.

“People realize this is a way to influence policy that can be effective — if it’s the right place, at the right time, in the right way,” Teske said.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appears to have been the single largest player in Colorado politics in the June 30 primaries. The billionaire pumped $5 million in cash into a state super PAC backing U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet����ap failed bid for governor against Attorney General Phil Weiser. Weiser ended up winning the race by more than 13 percentage points.

The race for the Democratic nomination for governor by far outstripped every other race in the primaries, with more than $24.5 million spent by either the super PACs backing the candidates or by the campaigns themselves.

That money was almost evenly split between the super PACs and the campaigns, though that number is skewed by the super PAC backing Bennet, Rocky Mountain Way. That political action committee spent nearly $11 million, almost twice as much as Bennet����ap official campaign spent.

The Republican side of the governor’s race saw a relatively paltry $4.1 million spent through June 29, the cutoff for the most recent batch of campaign data. Nonprofit leader Victor Marx, who had more than $3.2 million of that money backing him either directly or through a state super PAC, narrowly secured the nomination Thursday over state Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer and third-place state Rep. Scott Bottoms.

On the federal side of the ledger, the money becomes even more opaque — though there was less of it. Campaigns’ federal reports cover fundraising and spending through June 10, though outside groups had to file more frequent spending reports in the lead-up to the election.

State Rep. Manny Rutinel benefited from the most outside money, $5.5 million, in his successful campaign for the Democratic nomination in the 8th Congressional District. By comparison, Shannon Bird, the former state representative who lost to Rutinel, saw $1.7 million spent to buoy her.

More than $3 million of outside help for Rutinel came from the Latino Victory Fund and the associated Latino Victory Project. Those groups have received money from Opportunity Forward Alliance, a dark-money group that describes itself as backing business-friendly policies, and 5000 Broadway Productions, the production company founded by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

He also benefited from almost $1 million spent by You Can Push Back, a super PAC supported by . And $1.2 million backing Rutinel’s campaign came from the SOMOS PAC, a super PAC that was backed by the nonprofit Advocacy Action Fund. That nonprofit has been linked and has a history of giving to self-styled progressive and abortion-rights advocacy groups.

That 8th District race — expected to be one of the most competitive in the nation, again — will almost certainly draw a gob-smacking amount of money and attention as the November general election nears. In 2024, the candidates and outside groups spent more than $40 million on the election that saw U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans, a Republican, win the seat. It was among in the country and is seen this time as key to whichever party will hold the House majority next year.

Now Evans is running for reelection in the 8th District, which stretches from the north Denver suburbs to Greeley.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, who was on the wrong side of the primary night’s biggest upset in Colorado, was the second-largest beneficiary of outside money, largely as part of a last-minute surge to preserve her office. More than $2.3 million flew into that race to defend DeGette, whose 1st Congressional District mostly covers Denver.

Of that, more than $1.5 million came from the Pro-Choice Majority Action PAC, which in turn receives money from the EDW Action Fund, a pro-Democratic women’s group that is , or AIPAC.

By comparison, now-Democratic nominee Melat Kiros, a democratic socialist who beat DeGette by 13.4 percentage points, had just over $500,000 in outside spending support her campaign against the 30-year incumbent. Kiros’ campaign also spent less than $600,000 directly, or less than half of DeGette’s total campaign spending.

Shimon Blau, a pain management physician and Israel supporter, on Thursday turned in signatures required to get on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate — and he did so just an hour before the deadline after a rush to collect signatures this week.

“Dr. Blau turned in petitions at 4 p.m.,” Colorado Secretary of State’s Office spokesman Jack Todd said Thursday. “I cannot speak to how many signatures Dr. Blau turned in, or whether his petition submission will ultimately be deemed sufficient or insufficient.”

Blau must submit 1,500 valid voter signatures from the 1st Congressional District, which for the most part covers Denver, to make the November ballot. Election officials have until July 30 to review petitions for unaffiliated candidates, Todd said.

Kiros, who defeated the 15-term DeGette in the June 30 primary, also faces Republican Christy Peterson, who according to Federal Election Commission records had raised no money for the race through the end of March. She didn’t file a more recent campaign finance report.

Blau, who is Jewish, launched his long-shot congressional bid on Sunday, that he was “saddened and alarmed” by Kiros’ victory a few days earlier.

Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist, has been criticized for comments she made about 9/11, Israel’s legitimacy as a nation, and the deadly firebombing attack on Jews and others demonstrating in Boulder last year — an act she refused to call antisemitic.

“I am particularly concerned by what I view as Ms. Kiros’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and her refusal to meet with leaders of Denver’s Jewish community to address their concerns,” Blau wrote in his launch announcement.

Both Blau and Peterson may face a tough time trying to beat Kiros this fall, given Denver’s heavily Democratic skew.

The state’s newest district — covering a Front Range area spanning from Greeley down to the northern suburbs of Denver — has seen only two elections. The first went to a Democrat, the second to a Republican. And both victories hinged on very thin margins.

The Republican victor in 2024 was Gabe Evans, of Fort Lupton, who is hoping to turn his freshman term in Congress into at least two more years in office. His challenger, fresh off a resounding victory in the Democratic primary last Tuesday, is state Rep. Manny Rutinel of Commerce City.

And in the middle of it all are the political prognosticators and party operatives, desperate to decipher what voters’ choices this November in Colorado’s most competitive congressional race might say about future trendlines in the electorate at large.

“There’s no doubt this is a race that will attract national money,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes congressional races as U.S. House editor for the Cook Political Report.

Cook lists the 8th District among .

While the typical campaign issues will likely be prominent in the race — immigration, healthcare and economic well-being among them — there are additional complications for the candidates to navigate this fall.

For Evans, 39, it’s President Donald Trump, a Republican whose . The president is particularly disliked in Colorado.

Cost of living continues to be a pressing issue, despite the fact the president campaigned on bringing down prices that spiked under his predecessor. And both Trump’s foreign policy — especially the war in Iran — and his immigration enforcement tactics have alienated voters across the political spectrum.

The more Democrats can link Evans to the president, the better for his opponent, said David Boian, a Democratic political strategist.

“Gabe Evans has been right there with Donald Trump — arm in arm,” he said. “That’s a huge liability for him.”

Rutinel, 31, can expect attempts to place him within the surging left corner of the Democratic Party, exemplified by the stunning primary victory Tuesday of democratic socialist Melat Kiros over 15-term U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the congressional district that covers Denver.

There is no doubt, said former Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams, that campaign ads will highlight comments Kiros has recently made about 9/11, Israel’s legitimacy as a nation, and the deadly firebombing attack on Jews and others demonstrating in Boulder last year — an act she refused to call antisemitic.

Those statements, which drew rebukes from  and even some , could be used in an attempt to taint Rutinel’s campaign if he doesn’t sufficiently disavow Kiros. She’s one of a handful of far-left candidates who have toppled Democratic members of Congress in recent primaries.

“Her anti-semitism is palpable,” Wadhams said. “Everything she says will reflect on the Democrats statewide.”

Asked for Rutinel’s thoughts on Kiros, his campaign sent The Denver Post a statement from the candidate: “I believe that no terrorist attack is inevitable, whether that is 9/11 or the attack in Boulder,” Rutinel said. “Israel has a right to exist, and the Boulder attack was an antisemitic act of terrorism, and antisemitism has no place in this country.”

Challenges on the trail

Boian’s advice to Rutinel would be that he “keeps his distance from Kiros,” given that the political composition of the 8th Congressional District — which was drawn by an independent commission to be competitive — is a far cry from that of deep-blue Denver. The candidate, he said, needs to focus on the voters in the district who have grown tired of Trump and his administration’s policies.

“The key to winning this race is unaffiliated voters,” Boian said.

Unaffiliated voters in the 8th District outnumber both Republicans and Democrats combined — by a factor of more than 2-to-1, according to state election data.

Covey, with the Cook Political Report, thinks Trump might be a bigger problem for Evans than Kiros might be for Rutinel, namely because he is the president and has a far greater impact on voters’ lives.

“Trump is going to be a real anchor on Evans,” she said.

For his part, Evans has attempted to create some daylight between himself and the president. He has , which have an outsized impact on farmers and ranchers. He also joined GOP lawmakers last year in expressing concern to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement about whether it was still prioritizing the deportation of criminals.

Whether that will be enough to allay concerns among voters in the 8th — Colorado’s most heavily Latino district, with roughly 40% of voters identifying that way — is yet to be seen. But nothing will go either candidate’s way without a big megaphone and the money to keep it sounding.

While Evans has the advantage in fundraising — with $3.5 million cash on hand as of June 10, nearly four times as much as his opponent — Rutinel’s success in attracting cash is notable, Covey said. It helped him fend off primary challengers, one thing Evans lacked this time around.

But it’s the outside money that could well have the most impact on the race. It factored big in the Democratic primary — with more than $8 million poured into the race either on behalf of or against Rutinel and his opponent, former state Rep. Shannon Bird. Rutinel defeated Bird by about 30 percentage points.

Already, the pro-Republican super PAC Congressional Leadership Fund has to the Denver media market for advertising in this fall’s election cycle. On the other side, the House Majority PAC plans in Denver market ad buys on behalf of Democratic House candidates this fall.

Because Rutinel is the newer face on the national stage, his challenge will be solidifying his image before others do it for him. He’s off to a rough start, Wadhams said, after on several issues on which he used to stand farther left.

In an interview with a five years ago, Rutinel called animal agriculture a “horrific, exploitive industry.” He doesn’t say that anymore. Rutinel also once opposed fracking, a position he said in a May primary debate he no longer held.

Agriculture and ranching, along with oil and gas development, are major pillars of the 8th District’s economy outside its urban areas.

“To attack the very nature of the 8th District — it goes beyond just adjusting his position,” Wadhams said. “He’s gone from being a vegan to loving beef. He’s a chameleon.”

Boian, the Democratic strategist, said voters aren’t going to focus on candidate positions that may have evolved over the years.

“I think where the race is going is strictly to people’s pocketbooks,” he said. “Can they get to the store and get food for their kids?”

Evans has his own background story “to clean up,” Boian said, referencing an published last summer into multiple generations of Evans’ family, in which the publication alleged that Evans had misrepresented his family’s immigration story.

Compelling personal stories

Ultimately, Wadhams said, both candidates have “very compelling” personal stories to tell.

Rutinel is the son of a single mother who immigrated to the United States from the Dominican Republic. The candidate often talks about having to help her fill out applications for food assistance and Medicaid benefits when he was young.

Previously an economist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rutinel, who’s also an attorney, was appointed by a vacancy committee to the Colorado House in 2023 to represent a portion of Adams County and Commerce City. He was elected to his seat the following year.

Evans is the grandson of Mexican immigrants, and his grandfather became a U.S. citizen through his military service in World War II. He served a dozen years in the U.S. Army as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot, then nearly a decade as an Arvada police officer.

For Joe Petrocco, who helps run his family’s farm in Brighton and serves as president of the Colorado Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, his vote will go to Evans in November.

Petrocco, 55, likes the Republican’s support for efforts to keep farmworkers’ wages in check. Past increases in federally mandated wages for H-2A workers, who are foreign nationals working in agriculture, have made it impossible for farms like his to compete with countries like Mexico, where he says workers are paid “not $20 an hour but $20 a day.”

“He’s helping make us profitable again,” Petrocco said.

He also credits Evans for helping introduce the bipartisan last year. The bill seeks to reform the country’s asylum system and provide a path for workers who are in the country unlawfully to obtain legal status.

“He’s a Latino man and he respects his heritage,” Petrocco said.

Abby Hicks, a physical education teacher who lives in Mead, said Rutinel is the “real deal.” His rags-to-riches story appeals to her, and she appreciates his focus on bringing costs down — something he addressed as recently as Tuesday night at his election watch party in Commerce City.

Hicks, 44, said many of her students at Mead High School don’t see themselves represented by the older generations that still dominate politics in Colorado.

“He’s different from all the other politicians you meet,” she said of Rutinel. “He’s so eager to listen and learn — in today’s politics, we’re missing that.”

What an interesting primary election for the Democrats. Name recognition was supposed to give the victory to Sen. Michael Bennet, but it did not. He announced his campaign, saying he could get more done in Colorado than in Washington, D.C. So, I guess the honorable thing to do would be to retire from his Senate seat. Then, in an ironic twist, Phil Weiser could appoint his replacement.

Name recognition, and it would seem, name recognition only, brought victory to Jena Griswold. She’s an attorney with no courtroom or prosecutorial experience. Her future staff in the attorney general’s office are going to have so much fun at staff meetings.

Then there is state Rep. Sean Comacho’s defeat. Sean, we just wanted to know the source of all that dark money. Maybe you should go see Disclosure Day.

Finally, there is U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette’s defeat, which happened due to laziness and complacency. I’m not exactly sad to see DeGette go, but now we have a candidate for November who believes the state of Israel has no right to exist and should not have weapons to defend itself. Melat Kiros seems like a smart person. But if you can’t make a distinction between the government of Israel and its people, maybe not.

James Ronald LaFollette, Denver

Over the years, The Denver Post has run a goodly number of opinions I’ve submitted, and I appreciate it. However, I’ve submitted a few proclaiming my disapproval of the policies and actions of the state of Israel, which is not antisemitic. I harbor no animosity or prejudice against the Jewish faith nor its culture. Not one of those submissions was published.

It would seem the results of the Denver Democratic primary are an indication that I was and am not alone in this persuasion. I am anti-colonialism, as Israel is primarily an Eastern European colony. I am anti-genocide as this is clearly the aim of Israel’s campaign to eliminate both the Palestinian state and its people. Finally, I resent tremendously the use of my tax dollars to not only support but also promote both of the above.

Bill Starks, Arvada

I applaud The Denver Post Open Forum for its wisdom in selecting the op ed of Vivian Weinstein of Denver on the June 27 opinion page. Werinstein and I are both of the Jewish faith and support Melat Kiros, Colorado Democrat candidate for the upcoming midterm House seat long held by Diane DeGette. Having experienced genocide waged against her Ethiopian family, Melat Kiros has expressed sympathy for the Palestinians of Gaza.

To be sure, the thugs of Hamas and Hezbollah committed a horrific massacre of young Jewish civilians enjoying a music festival on October 7, 2023. Israeli Jews had every right to retaliate with great force. But what has followed has been nothing short of an all-out genocide against Gazan and Lebanese civilians.

Democratically elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu no doubt considers himself a peaceful leader, but he has waged brutal aggression against his perceived enemies on the West Bank and many parts of the Middle East. His aggression continues to this day. He is, in fact, an autocrat.

Netanyahu acts like a king, as does U.S. President Donald Trump. The two of them teamed up to bomb Iran in a war that, by all accounts, has been a dismal failure. War must necessarily be the last resort. Displaying humanity must be a moral imperative among the world’s leaders. But because of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, I find that in my old age, I am embarrassed to be a Jewish American. We must do better. We must not tolerate Kings.

Barry Sharcot, Denver

I feel sad for Michael Bennet that he doesn’t get to come home to Colorado yet, but we still need him in Washington. I believe Weiser is best in tune to Colorado’s local needs, and Michael has been a great advocate for Colorado for many years.

Unlike much of the outside funding of other campaigns, I suspect a lot of Michael’s reflected the respect he has from other parts of the country, especially the western states.

Thank you, Bennet.

Gail Ryan, Lakewood

To Monica Duran, Joe Neguse, Jason Crow, and Britany Pettersen,

I was disappointed in you all and never understood your support for Michael Bennet. That said, please take note that Corporate Democrats who are supported by billionaire-funded Super PACs, which run disparaging campaigns against the people’s democratic candidates, are no longer winning in Colorado.

Louis Kolker, Lakewood

I voted for Julie Gonzalez for U.S. Senate in the June primary because I don’t believe that John Hickenlooper has the qualities that will be needed to meet the challenges that face our country in the years ahead. Democrats need a fighter, not a compromiser, to deal with Trump and the MAGA Republicans in Congress.

We need universal healthcare, but Hickenlooper is opposed to Medicare for All. He has a history of voting for Trump nominees. He’s too old (and I’m 79). I hope he will learn the right lessons from his pathetic 53% to 47% “victory” on Tuesday. People are sick and tired of politics as usual. So, if he wants to leave a meaningful legacy for his time in the Senate, I suggest that he scrap his centrist tendencies and concentrate his efforts on making the future brighter for our children and grandchildren.

Mike Dubrovich, Parker

The cost of wolves to ranchers is far more than just a number on paper

���:��“What’s really killing cattle in Colorado,” June 28, guest commentary.

Erik MMolvar’scolumn on the impact of the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado makes the point that the losses ranchers suffer due to those wolves are relatively minor in terms of the losses from other causes. I assume that Molvar hopes readers conclude that complaints about wolves are overblown.

However, my conclusion is that raising cattle is fraught with risks, and the presence of wolves has added yet another risk to ranching. Like all of agriculture, ranching is a risky but necessary industry subject to many variables outside of anyone’s control, stretching from weather to selling in a market that sets prices regardless of the costs incurred. Wolves add to the risks, minor or otherwise, and impact the profitability of ranching.

While the sstate’scompensation helps, I doubt that it fully compensates for the additional costs of having wolves in the environment. For example, does the compensation include a value for the time needed to go through the claim process rather than attending to other tasks or the extra diligence expended to minimize the losses? My observation is from the perspective of someone who has lived his life in urban and suburban areas and never worked in ranching or farming.

Shawn Thompson, Denver

1stBank to PNC transition has been rough

���:��“Rebrand sparks outcry,” “June 27, news story.

I’m one of the 1stBank customers leaving PNC. I’ve been a 1stBank client since 1985. Their customer service was always fantastic. After the merger was announced, PNC sent me a self-praising letter promising customer service as good or better than 1stBank. We shall see, I thought.

Next, I read they are laying off almost 800 of their Colorado employees. Then, I get a thick transition letter with a task list for me, with a list of deadlines. I didn’t ask for this, and I’m not your employee, so why am I doing your work for you? Concerned about a direct deposit, I needed PNC customer service. In the transition letter to Coloradans, customer service hours were given in Eastern Time because not a single person in this national bank could take the five seconds required to translate Eastern Time to Mountain Time. Rude.

Anyway, I called the customer service number printed on the transition letter. After 30 minutes on hold, I was told, “We are not allowed to answer transition questions. Here’s the number for that.” Put on hold again. I’m moving my accounts to Bank of Colorado.

Joan Jacobson, Lakewood

A bright spot in the blight of gambling

“Howsports betting became Colorado’s ticket to funding $140 million in water conservation projects,” June 18, news story.

Thank you for your coverage of the conservation projects that are funded by sports betting. I did not realize there was a bright spot in this cancerous activity that has become so popular.

C. Greenman, Lakewood

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

It was a phone call that secured her support — and not even one that Lang received herself. She’d met someone at a May Day labor rally who had a transgender child. The otherwise stranger told Lang about calling the Colorado Attorney General’s Office to express worry about the Trump administration’s for children like hers.

Weiser — the elected attorney general since 2019 — responded, Lang said, by calling that constituent personally to promise he would use his office to protect those rights.

“That’s an example of governing — it’s not about political power, it����ap about being here to serve the people,” said Lang, a 37-year-old Denverite. “That really spoke volumes to me.”

Voters like her helped propel Weiser, 58, to a stunning victory on Tuesday over U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet — a man who had previously won three statewide elections by ever-increasing margins, lined up a who’s who of Democratic endorsements before his campaign even launched, benefited from $11.4 million in super PAC support backing his candidacy, and enjoyed, polls long showed, a massive edge in name recognition.

But Bennet’s advantages didn’t always break through to voters — and there were also harder-to-gauge intangible factors that can vary from voter to voter, like which candidate comes across as more personable or more trustworthy.

Lang said she read the news daily, particularly after Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election “catalyzed” her. She knew Weiser had sued the Trump administration repeatedly; she couldn’t place Bennet or what he had done.

The surprise delivered by Tuesday night’s primary result wasn’t necessarily Weiser’s victory itself. He had campaigned himself into striking distance in the final month of the race, while Bennet����ap support seemed calcified. Most political observers, by then, saw a world where either man could become the Democratic nominee.

The surprise was the thoroughness of Weiser’s victory — more than 13 percentage points as of Thursday evening, with most ballot-counting complete.

“Weiser ran an amazing campaign,” Colorado State University political science professor Kyle Saunders said. “He didn’t have the name recognition six months ago. He didn’t have the backing. And this wasn’t some squeaker you can explain away with turnout.

“There’s no doubt, to my eye, that Weiser was helped by anti-incumbent sentiment. But this was a shellacking.”

‘Discontent among the Democratic base’

From the time Bennet announced he was running in April 2025, three months after Weiser entered the race, the senator was dogged by questions about why he’d want to leave Washington, D.C. — and why he needed to give up one of the most powerful political positions in the country to make a difference for Colorado.

While not a true incumbent, Bennet nonetheless faced the drag of an anti-incumbent year as he sought another office.

And now, instead of being able to move back to Colorado full time, Bennet will remain in Washington, with more than two years left in his Senate term — while Weiser faces the Republican nominee who emerges from a primary race that was, as of late Thursday, still too close to call. In increasingly blue Colorado, the Democrat will go into the fall general election campaign as a heavy favorite.

A pair of polls by the bipartisan Colorado Polling Institute, from September and April, pointed to that broader discontent with incumbents, especially among Democrats frustrated with the Trump administration — and with what their elected officials were doing to fight it.

The April poll found Bennet’s favorability among Coloradans had dropped from the prior year’s poll results, from 45% to 40%. His unfavorable rating had risen, from 31% to 39%.

“CPI had been picking up on discontent among the Democratic base throughout the past year, and the primary became the release valve,” said Kevin Ingham, a principal from the Democratic polling firm Aspect Strategic, which works with CPI. “Every race is different, but the data was all pointing towards a uniquely difficult environment for any longtime Democratic incumbent.”

That sentiment was apparently most stark in Denver. Voters in the Democratic primary there ousted longtime U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in favor of attorney Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist who’s now the nominee. Denver was also where Weiser did best, winning almost two votes for each one cast for Bennet. And it’s where Bennet’s Senate counterpart, U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper — who still won the Democratic nomination for reelection Tuesday — trailed his challenger, liberal state Sen. Julie Gonzales, by nearly 9 percentage points.

Map: Who’s leading in the Colorado primary race for governor?

Amy Kenreich, a 46-year-old Denverite, said she saw Weiser as more progressive overall than Bennet, with values that she shared. But as much as she supported Weiser, she was driven just as much by an antipathy for Bennet that stretched back to his time running Denver Public Schools nearly 20 years ago.

She accused him of using his time there to bring “the privatization movement to education in Denver,” and she saw him as likely to do the same as governor.

The flood of outside money into the race, including $5 million from New York City billionaire Michael Bloomberg to support Bennet, only reinforced that feeling.

"Once people understand what's going on, see what's going on, it's disgusting — and they're outraged,” Kenreich said. “People are more likely to take action if they're angry about something, and they're angry about billionaire influence for sure."

Making personal connections

Danielle Varda, an Arvada volunteer for Weiser’s campaign and a Democratic candidate for the Colorado House of Representatives, said she saw the election as a rejection of an "ivory tower of election-knowers.”

“We just saw how slick your mailer is, and how many go out," Varda said. "It����ap the difference between authenticity and a gimmick. I think Bennet was relying on the machine, the way everyone tells you you’re supposed to do it. And times are just changing.”

She contrasted that with Weiser. She described him as someone who, “when he meets people, he looks them in the eye and remembers their name.”

Varda had her own moment like that about a year ago. Weiser had already made it clear he wouldn’t issue endorsements in state House races. But when they both attended an event, he made sure to talk with her and get her phone number.

“He made that one little personal connection, and I felt seen,” Varda said. “I felt like he cared who I was. … If you multiply that by a million, that����ap Phil Weiser.”

From there, the two politicians' networks overlapped. Varda didn’t have an opponent in the primary, having won out at the local assembly, but that moment with Weiser motivated her to use her connections to campaign on his behalf.

She recalled meeting with Democratic groups in Golden — typically thought of as a more moderate enclave of metro Denver, Varda said — and found people eager for a fighter. Weiser would go on to win Jefferson County with 57% of the vote.

Bennet declined media interviews after a show-of-unity Democratic Party event on Thursday that drew many candidates and officials. But during a speech congratulating Weiser (and after chuckling about Weiser’s unofficial slogan: “Phil Weiser for governor; Michael Bennet for Senate"), he praised his opponent����ap work.

“It����ap hard to start in the position Phil was in, and knock on every door and make those calls and get out to every single community and win this race,” Bennet said. “I was amazed to watch the work that he did and to see the loyalty of the team that he built all over the state of Colorado, from the very beginning.”

Weiser, for his part, emphasized lessons he learned from past governors, including Roy Romer and Hickenlooper, and from former U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter.

“If you’re knocking on doors, you’re there to listen and learn,” Weiser said. “... You shake every hand. You honor every voter. You’re there to serve, and you do it with a smile because this work is about the people of Colorado."

While this election promises to be more amusing than usual, the results will be no laughing matter. We, the people, are better served when there are two viable parties in the statehouse and serious people representing the state.

If Barbara Kirkmeyer were facing off with Democrat Phil Weiser, the race would be a contest of ideas and Republican candidates for the General Assembly would be buoyed by her presence on the ballot. With more Republicans in the statehouse, lawmakers would be more likely to pass balanced legislation when they convene in 2027.

Over the past few years, single-party rule in state government has generated higher taxes (I mean fees), burdensome business regulation, and even extreme laws that have been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. With more people leaving Colorado than moving in, a move toward moderation will stop the bleeding.

However, with Marx as the Republican nominee, the state’s continued march to the left is guaranteed. Weiser need not campaign to win. He can focus on helping candidates in down-ticket races with the aim of attaining a Democratic supermajority in the General Assembly. Come November, we can officially rename the Colorado Republican Caucus, the Colorado Republican Carcass.

While Democrats did not choose an exorcist as their candidate for governor, some of their choices were also less than prudent. In the 1st Congressional District race, Denver voters picked Melat Kiros, a fiery 29-year-old self-proclaimed democratic socialist, over 15-term Rep. Diana DeGette. The upset compares to Lauren Boebert����ap 2020 primary win against incumbent Scott Tipton in the 3rd Congressional District.

Boebert, who recently made news by mocking her colleague’s hospitalization for severe depression, has been a gift to Democrats since she took office. Will Kiros, whose writings have already gotten her fired once, tone down her rhetoric once in office, or will she, like Boebert, prove to be an embarrassment to the state? Time will tell.

In the 8th Congressional District, voters picked the more left-leaning Manny Rutinel over former lawmaker Shannon Bird. Bird would have given U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans a reason to worry. The swing district, rated “toss-up” by the Cook Political Report, includes both suburban and rural areas. Rutinel, a former vegan, has described animal agriculture as a “horrific, exploitative industry.” Now that he’s a candidate, Rutinel is trying to sound more supportive of the district����ap economic driver. It is doubtful voters will believe the convenient change of heart.

There was one race where the establishment candidate was not the best choice, but voters nevertheless picked a candidate with slim credentials and a track record of errors. Jena Griswold will now face Republican District Attorney Michael J. Allen in the race for attorney general. Because of her past performance as Secretary of State, Allen has a chance. In other blue states like Massachusetts and Maryland, Republicans occasionally secure a statewide office. It could happen here.

As Tuesday’s results show, Colorado can always expect the unexpected in elections.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

By early Wednesday evening, when Denver had finished counting the bulk of its ballots, Kiros — who was not alive when DeGette, 68, was elected to her first of 15 terms — led the congresswoman by more than 13 percentage points.

The 29-year-old lawyer marshalled grassroots support and an array of favorable forces to dislodge a fixture of Denver’s political scene — and upend the shadow primary that had quietly awaited DeGette’s retirement, with aspiring successors biding their time. Kiros’ campaign, working with the Denver chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, out-organized DeGette repeatedly, nearly keeping her off the ballot in the spring and then overcoming DeGette’s hefty financial advantage in the campaign’s final weeks.

The campaign harnessed — or at least rode — the discontent that Democratic voters have expressed for their longtime party officials, including with her full-throated support of the Palestinian people over Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip. The congressional district’s Democratic electorate, dominated by Denverites, turned out in numbers that eclipsed nearly every prior primary race in DeGette’s career.

“Melat ran a compelling campaign with a vision about what America can be and should be, rather than being this politician that constantly tells voters no,” said Deep Singh Badhesha, a Denver DSA member who worked with Kiros’ campaign. “… It����ap something you’re seeing all across the nation. It����ap that do-nothing Democrats aren’t good enough anymore.”

Meanwhile, DeGette, who had batted away the occasional primary challenger over the years, appeared flat-footed.

She highlighted her progressive bona fides and her experience. But her pitch — that she was a proven progressive who’d managed one of President Donald Trump’s impeachments and would have seniority should the Democrats retake Congress this fall — failed to counteract the wave that Kiros had caught.

“DeGette is liberal, and particularly had done a lot of work on reproductive rights,” said Paul Teske, a professor at the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Public Affairs who had Kiros as a student in one of his classes. “I wouldn’t paint her too far in the center, though Melat was certainly to the left. But the enthusiasm gap, the age gap and the willingness to fight Trump (put Kiros over).”

In a video DeGette released around noon Wednesday to concede the race, she congratulated Kiros for her win. She said she would make the most of her final six months in office.

“Frankly, this was not the way I would have wanted to end my career in politics, but I’m proud of my accomplishments,” she said. “… I strive every day to be the quintessential legislator, passing bills of my own design and collaborating with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make a better society for all Americans.

“Sadly, in our toxic political climate, there seems to be little room for that type of politician anymore.”

Decisive defeat amid high turnout

When DeGette trailed at the first ballot drop Tuesday evening, her defeat appeared certain. By Wednesday, the win had turned into a rout.

“In the cold light of morning, 10 points — that almost feels like there aren’t many tactical or strategic decisions the campaign could have made that would have changed the outcome,” Ian Silverii, a political consultant whose firm briefly worked for DeGette in the spring, said on a livestream of his podcast Wednesday morning. The margin later grew more.

The victory propels Kiros to the November election in solid-blue Denver against a Republican nominee, Christy Peterson, who’s little known and hasn’t reported fundraising.

Kiros, who is also a member of the Denver DSA chapter, rode the same waves that propelled similar candidates elsewhere. A week before her victory, three New York City congressional candidates endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani won their primaries.

Kiros received the Denver DSA endorsement earlier this year, and her campaign and the organization later became “totally bound up” in each other, said Susie Ramsey, the co-chair of Denver DSA and a Kiros campaign staffer. The Denver group modeled its approach for Kiros — training field leads who could run their own canvassing efforts in specific parts of the district — after Mamdani’s approach in New York.

But at the time, the DSA’s electoral muscle in the state had atrophied, she said. The Denver DSA has endorsed some Denver City Council candidates, with a handful winning in recent elections, but most of its council slate lost in 2023.

Ramsey said that, initially, she thought Kiros’ campaign was a long shot but, if nothing else, it could help build left-wing power in the city.

Who is Melat Kiros? What to know about the 29-year-old democratic socialist who ousted U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette.

Then Kiros and DSA organizers nearly kept DeGette off of the ballot at the party’s nominating assemblies in March, where the incumbent barely cleared the 30% viability threshold of support among party delegates. The process was a proving ground for DSA’s newfound organizing, and its success helped rally members and convince them — and Kiros — that they could topple DeGette.

Crucially, it also earned the campaign invaluable media attention.

“It built our muscle,” Ramsey said.

By the end of the campaign, the Denver DSA’s membership had grown from around 1,350 to nearly 1,800 members, Ramsey said. Kiros’ campaign had 1,800 volunteers — half of whom, Ramsey estimated, were DSA members.

The DSA-backed success in New York, Ramsey said, “is showing us what the horizon is, and Denver is showing you how we can compress the timeline.”

In a memo distributed Wednesday, the Colorado Polling Institute pointed to an August survey that found that more than half of Denver Democratic voters had a favorable view of socialism. Among voters under the age of 35, 65% had a favorable view of socialism, compared to 35% who were supportive of capitalism.

Annie Orloff, a spokeswoman for Kiros’ campaign, also attributed some of the campaign’s success to its association with the DSA.

“Socialism is very popular here. Or at least a little more popular than capitalism,” Orloff said. “I think (Denver DSA) will keep growing. You could see at the watch party — at all of our canvasses — that people are so hungry to be a part of a community that is fun, that is also fighting for working people.”

'A rejection of the old guard'

But Kyle Saunders, a political science professor at Colorado State University, disagreed.

“Kiros’ victory reads as more a rejection of the old guard than a conversion to socialism,” he wrote in . “Downtown Denver is young, educated, full of renters and mostly socialist-adjacent at best. Many of those voters are tired of the establishment, and the DSA was the only outfit organized enough to give that feeling a home.”

How amenable Denver voters are to the values of democratic socialism may be less relevant than how much work Kiros' campaign put into organizing, however. Volunteers knocked on 115,000 doors and made more than half a million phone calls, Ramsey said.

“To overcome the millions of dollars in dark money, we were able to have real conversations with folks across the city, and I think that made a real difference,” Orloff said.

DeGette’s campaign spent $1.2 million, while outside supporters dropped more than $2.3 million in the past month to bolster the congresswoman’s chances. Much of that support came from Pro-Choice Majority Action, which had been funded in part by groups supporting Israel.

Those ads, some of which attacked Kiros for “recently moving to Denver,” appeared to turn some voters away from DeGette, Orloff said. A child of immigrants, Kiros was born in Ethiopia but moved to Denver with her family as a baby.

“It����ap anecdotal, but we had people show up to canvas after seeing some of those ads,” she said.

Kiros shocked Colorado’s political world when she secured her place on the ballot by winning the county assembly earlier this year. Then, a few couple weeks later, DeGette only narrowly landed on the ballot herself.

“She also fell asleep. (DeGette) did not take this as seriously as she should have,” said Jason Bane, who operates the Democratic political website ColoradoPols.com. “The combination of anger about Trump and anger about older elected officials — and DeGette’s general absence in the district — made this a perfect opportunity for someone like Kiros.”

Ramsey said that by the time DeGette started taking the race seriously, “it was too late for her.” Her campaign and the DSA had already shifted gears from the assembly process to the full campaign.

“We almost pushed her off the ballot, you would think that would wake her up,” Ramsey said.

DeGette spoke only through her video and statement Wednesday. A campaign spokesman said the congresswoman wasn’t available for an interview.

Teske, the CU Denver professor, said it����ap hard for candidates like DeGette to make their case to voters when they’re in the minority party in the House.

“I imagine when you've been elected 15 times over 30 years, you get a little complacent maybe,” Teske said, noting that DeGette has fended off challengers from the left before.

Of his former student, he recalls telling Kiros how difficult it would be to unseat DeGette. Ultimately, he said Kiros won with a “smart, politically savvy” campaign that tapped into a national political atmosphere.

Staff writer Nick Coltrain contributed to this story.

The “how” is simple — Kiros ran an incredible grassroots campaign while DeGette was nearly absent from the campaign trail. Even after losing badly to Kiros at the Democratic County Assembly, DeGette and her supporters waited until the last minute to pour a million dollars into the campaign.

Kiros, who defeated DeGette by almost 10 points, faces a Republican candidate in November who is unlikely to win in Denver, where Democrats and unaffiliated voters account for a vast majority of registered voters.

The important question now is what the next two years look like for a political newcomer who has made ending Israel a cornerstone of her campaign, despite pleas from Colorado’s Jewish community for Kiros to bring more nuance to her position.

“When I wrote a letter defending students’ rights to protest the genocide in Gaza, my law firm told me, ‘take it down or you’re fired,'” Kiros told a crowd of supporters Tuesday night in a now familiar retelling of her path to politics. “I didn’t flinch because I stood by every word, and I always will, but I know that will not be the only moment where those in power will tell me to change my tune, to not rock the boat. That seems to happen a lot in Congress, but here in Denver, we stand by our values, and we stand with our community.”

We are not in any position to tell Kiros that she should now change her position on Israel as she enters Congress, nor do we want her to stop talking about the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

What we do ask from Kiros is that she be intellectually honest about her position on ending Israel and about the “letter” she wrote.

Kiros’ 2,000-word essay that was predominantly about “the elimination of Israel,” and not a single word was about the student protests. She made the case that Israel, as a nation, must cease to exist because of the historic oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, the forced removal of Palestinians from Israel, and the then-months old indiscriminate bombing campaign in Gaza that had killed 10,000 people. She rightly predicted that Gaza was vulnerable to genocide. Today, the Gaza Health Ministry estimates 73,000 Palestinians have been killed and 173,000 injured. The bombings and shootings continue despite a ceasefire agreement that resulted in the release of hostages from the Oct. 7 terrorist attack.

“Perhaps it is naive to believe that the people in Palestine and Israel might one day live together as neighbors, in peace, without fear of persecution, under a new government, but it is not hopeless, and, most importantly, it is not anti-Semitic,” Kiros concluded her essay.

Kiros is anything but naïve. She is whip-smart and intimately familiar with the geopolitical and social conditions in the Middle East. She is not calling for the mastermind of this genocide, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to be ousted from power. She is not calling for an end to Hamas’ reign of terror over Palestinians and against Israelis. In fact, we have yet to hear her say the words “Hamas must go too if there is to be peace in historic Palestine.”

The Denverites she represents deserve to know that while in Congress, that is the position Kiros will be advocating for — an end to the state of Israel. Between now and the November election, Kiros has the opportunity to deepen and broaden her support in Denver by addressing the concern that she will use her vote in Congress to deny military aid to Israel without a plan for what happens when that country can no longer defend itself from people who are definitely antisemetic.

We don’t want to rain on Kiros’ parade. She won a historic primary election that echoes Rep. Pat Schroeder’s victory over a Republican incumbent in this very district in 1972.

Kiros’ upset victory Tuesday night reminds us of Schroeder’s win in two key ways: an anti-war push has dominated the conversation (Vietnam and Gaza), and the president in office (Nixon and Trump) is embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal. Schroeder was swept into office as the first woman to represent Colorado in Congress. Kiros, an immigrant from Ethiopia, will be the first person of color to represent Congressional District 1 if she wins in November.

The Kiros campaign was decidedly anti-Washington, anti-establishment, and, yes, anti-Israel. She is not yet 30 years old, and she is a talented politician and public speaker. She inspired thousands of voters and is part of a movement across the nation of democratic socialists being swept into power.

“We will not wait to take the fight to Donald Trump and the oligarchy. We will not wait to abolish ICE and pass Medicare for all. We will not wait to put an end to politics of the past, to get big money out of our politics, and to reject corporate PACs and AIPAC,” Kiros said during her election night victory speech. “And, no, we will not wait to end the genocide in Palestine.”

Good. We want Kiros to fight like hell for these things.

And if, while she is at it, Kiros finds it in her heart to consider the futures of approximately 7 million Jews who call Israel home, many of whom oppose Netanyahu’s government and oppose the terrorism of Zionist settlers in the West Bank, we know her support in Denver will only broaden when she faces re-election in two short years.

Schroeder went on to serve 24 years in Congress, and at the time, she was considered a radical candidate supporting reproductive freedom and fighting for equal rights for women. Kiros thanked DeGette on Tuesday night for helping to lead the fight for legal abortion and helping to build a culture in Denver where her family was welcomed from Ethiopia.

Now the question is how much further can Kiros carry Schroeder and DeGette’s mantle?

We think she will take it farther and faster if she builds a broader base of support than what has carried her past this primary.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.