If You Just Keep Saying It, Maybe It Will Come True

The campaign for Democrat Andrew Romanoff likes to say that he is the leading candidate for U.S. Senate according to independent polling results.

Except that he isn’t.

In mid-December, the Romanoff campaign sent out an email to supporters claiming that he was the favored candidate in a Rasmussen Reports poll from September. He was not.

Today, in an email from new Campaign Manager Bill Romjue, Romanoff’s campaign again claims that he outpolls Bennet in the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll. But he doesn’t. Check out this sample of the email sent today (full email appears after the jump):

Andrew Romanoff outperforms his primary opponent among voters of every political party, every age group, and every other demographic category. (Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 8, 2009)  Andrew has consistently earned the highest ratings since entering the race. [Pols emphasis] (Rasmussen, Sept. 15, 2009)

Not only has Romanoff not “consistently earned the highest ratings since entering the race,” we don’t know of any public poll showing that Romanoff leads anybody. That’s nothing to worry about, because it’s still early in the race, but it’s not okay to just lie about stuff that is easily verifiable.

Neither the December 8 Rasmussen Poll nor the September 15 Rasmussen poll show Romanoff leading Bennet. In both polls, Bennet outperforms Romanoff by a small margin against potential matchups with Republicans Jane Norton and Tom Wiens. Bennet doesn’t outperform Romanoff by much — and that is certainly a message they could exploit — but it just simply isn’t true to continue to say that Romanoff polls better than Bennet.

We’ve not been shy in expressing our confusion over the apparent lack of direction and message coming from the Romanoff camp (nor are we the only ones confused), but this is a different story altogether. Romanoff’s campaign has now sent two separate emails in the same month touting false information that anyone with an Internet connection can easily check themselves. It’s one thing to try to spin the results of a poll, but it’s another entirely to just flat-out lie, repeatedly, and expect that nobody will notice.


Coloradans want new leadership in the U.S. Senate.

Click here if you do, too.

That’s the clear conclusion of two recent polls on the Colorado Senate race.   (The surveys were not commissioned by any of the candidates.)  Voters would prefer a new senator by a margin of more than two to one. (Public Opinion Strategies, Dec. 12-15, 2009)

Andrew Romanoff outperforms his primary opponent among voters of every political party, every age group, and every other demographic category. (Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 8, 2009)  Andrew has consistently earned the highest ratings since entering the race. (Rasmussen, Sept. 15, 2009)

The fundraising quarter ends in 24 hours. Help put Andrew over the top.

Andrew is not only the most popular Democrat in the race; he’s also the most qualified.  No one has done more to turn our state around.  From winning the largest Democratic majority in nearly 50 years to tackling Colorado’s fiscal crisis, Andrew Romanoff has demonstrated enormous courage, vision and leadership.  Those are exactly the qualities we need in Washington today.

Someone has to stand up to the special-interest groups that run the Senate–and the members of both parties who let them.

Andrew Romanoff will.

In fact, he already has.  Andrew is the only candidate in this race to turn down contributions from corporate political action committees–the cash that so many big insurance companies, drugmakers and financial firms use to subsidize Congress and stifle reform.

Andrew Romanoff is leading by example.  That’s the only way real change ever comes.

Washington needs a wake-up call.  It’s time for us to deliver one.

Sincerely,

Bill Romjue

Campaign Manager

Romanoff for Colorado

80 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Arvadonian says:

    JO is about to be heard from….

    • Middle of the Road says:

      It should be fun to hear them spin this one. I can hardly wait, quite frankly.

      And on a far more serious note, this is the kind of crap, when it comes out, that really turns people off to a candidate and to supporting him down the road. The longer Romanoff runs using these bullshit tactics, the less I am respecting the man I thought he was.

      • BlueCat says:

        they could say, from the Dec. 8, poll that Norton gets one less point against Romanoff than against Bennet though the spread is actually worse for AR: Norton beats incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet 46% to 37%, and beats Romanoff 45% to 34%.

        Romanoff gets beaten by a statistically insignificant margn less by Ken Buck, 42% of the vote to Bennet’s 38% vs 41% to 39% for AR. Tom Wiens, in a match-up with Bennett, is up a point, 42% to 41% and up apoint, 41% to 40% on AR

        So I suppose, you could twist that into polling “better” without absolutely lying, as in Wiems gets a wopping 42% with Bennet as opposed to a mere 41% with AR.  Guess it would be slightly more honest than predicating a defense of one’s veracity on the meaning of “is”?

         

        • JO says:

          we could quote another graf from the Rasmussen poll:

          Sixteen percent (16%) of Colorado voters have a very favorable opinion of Bennet, but perhaps more importantly 28% view him very unfavorably. Romanoff is seen very favorably by 16% and very unfavorably by 18%.

          • Middle of the Road says:

            Let’s agree with JO, everybody, and then ask you, JO, to comment on the fact that AR just bald faced exaggerated (some of us in the “reality based world” you so despise would call it lying but we’ll leave that distinction for your dreamers) in his email to supporters.

            Exaggeration/lie? Yes or no?  

          • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

            That there aren’t some favorable numbers for Romanoff in these polls. What we ARE saying is that it is completely untrue to say, unequivocally, that Romanoff has consistently led Bennet in public polls. It’s factually wrong, no opinion required.

  2. Automaticftp says:

    a lie.  Say it isn’t so, Andrew!

    And if you do magically reappear, please answer this question: Why was loyalty to the party so important to you when you were in the legislature, but not now?

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      How does “loyalty to the party” equate to “loyalty to Bennet?”  Is Bennet the Democratic party?  

      • MADCO says:

        Auto didn’t say that Bennet is the D party nor that AR owes loyalty to him.

        I think – and hope Automaticftp will comment – that the comment reflects a larger issue.  Why is AR running a campaign that seems not to be reflective of who he was?

        For example-

        When he used to take PAC money it was no problem. Now it’s evil.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        since we have both weighed in on this before–here goes.

        Party loyalty was Andrew’s mantra when he was attempting to take back the House (yes, I know, he claims sole credit for a job well done but believe it or not there were a few heavy hitters right there with him.)

        He was quite specific with Democratic candidates and what was he specific about? That primaries were a bad idea. That you pick one guy, you clear the field of all competition and turn all of your fire power on the Republican opponent.

        For some of us that really liked Andrew (and I would be one of them) this is just yet another example of him saying one thing and doing something completely different when it benefits him. I’m not big on people that can’t walk the walk. Actions speak louder than words and AR has made two major 360 degree turns on two rather large issues–

        1. PAC’s, which he took over $75,000 from when he was running in a safe district for the House and therefore, truly did not need a dime of their money to run against an opponent.

        2. Primaries–says one thing for 8 years, literally runs a House Majority Project on the “no primary” theory and then turns around and jumps in during an election year that is compounded by the problem of it being an off election year where the majority party typically loses more seats than they gain.  

      • Automaticftp says:

        explained it well.  Thanks!  

  3. MADCO says:

    Why not aim big ?

    If they are going to claim that AR leads vs. Bennet, why not just claim he also leads against all R’s, too?

    Oh, waitaminute…  

    Could it be that the AR campaign has figured out that credability is down with other than inside-insider D’s and so they need to claim to be leading v. Bennet in order to look credible, but stlll want to be perceived as the underdog against the R nominee to motivate the unmotivated D’s?

    I get the part about working with what you got- but c’mon.

    As I’ve said before I don’t think primaries are inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily damaging to the eventual nominee.   As I’ve also said before it depends on the kind of primary.  but this kind of bs is damaging to the eventual nominee.  

    I would now expect some R’s to support AR. Carefully orchestrated or just on their own because I think they’d rather run against him.  

  4. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Sept. 16 Rasmussen

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Colorado voters finds Bennet trailing former Republican Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton 45% to 36%. Norton formally announced her candidacy on Tuesday.

    In that contest, seven percent (7%) like some other candidate, and 12% are undecided.

    Another newcomer, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, is expected to announce his candidacy today (Wednesday), challenging Bennet for the Democratic Senate nomination next year. In a match-up with Norton, the highest profile Republican in the race so far, Romanoff is down by eight points – 42% to 34%.

    Okay, Norton beats Bennet by 9 points, Romanoff by 8.  A statistical tie, maybe, but still Romanoff does 1 point better than Bennet.

    Then, we see

    Eight percent (8%) of Colorado voters have a very favorable opinion of Bennet, while 19% view him very unfavorably. Romanoff is seen very favorably by 12% and very unfavorably by 20%.

    That’s a net 11 percent very unfavorable for Bennet and net very unfavorable of eight by Romanoff.  Both numbers suck but Bennets, unquestionably, suck the most.

    Moving to Dec. 11 Rasmussen:

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Norton beating incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet 46% to 37%, virtually identical to her lead in September. Eight percent (8%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.  …. Norton beats Romanoff 45% to 34%, little changed from the previous survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided, while seven percent (7%) like another candidate.

    So, here, at last, is Pols’ coveted “lead” for Bennet, who only loses by 9 perent while Romanoff loses by 11.  Again, these are for all practical purposes statistical ties but bragging rights, such as they are, do go to Bennet.  But then, we also find,

    Sixteen percent (16%) of Colorado voters have a very favorable opinion of Bennet, but perhaps more importantly 28% view him very unfavorably. Romanoff is seen very favorably by 16% and very unfavorably by 18%.

    That’s now Bennet with a 12 percent “very unfavorable” edge over very favorable.  Romanoff has only a 2 percent net “very unfavorable” rating.

    Again, plenty to bruise both egos.  But three of the four measures in the two polls do show Romanoff more popular than Bennet…or, to be accurate, Bennet even more unpopular than Romanoff.

    • BlueCat says:

      Here is pretty much the ridiculous argument I suggested for being able to say AR polled better! Only not from Jo or Sharon.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      Bennet doesn’t outperform Romanoff by much – and that is certainly a message they could exploit — but it just simply isn’t true to continue to say that Romanoff polls better than Bennet.

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        but the fact is that by three of the four measures Romanoff outperforms Bennett.  And one of them, the 10 percent “very unfavorable” lead for Bennet in the December poll, is quite statistically significant.  The others amount to statistical ties that the spinmeisters can spin as they will, and shouldn’t be accused of “lying.”  But Pols made categorical statements that are just not true in his lust to bash Romanoff.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          I think being an “incumbent” (I can’t remember which one I’m supposed to acknowledge since I’m constantly reminded that he isn’t an incumbent but an appointee, only…I’m reminded he’s an incumbent when polls come out) is going to hurt some folks in 2010, particularly if the economy doesn’t turn around.

          However, I am in complete disagreement with you when it comes to AR’s “spin” (yeah, I call that a lie–we farm girls are very black and white on that kind of shit) that he’s the “preferred” candidate who has “consistently earned the highest ratings”–that kind of spinning is making me dizzy.

          Look, I know he needs to raise some money. I won’t fault him there. It’s end of quarter in less than 48 hours. I’d just really appreciate it if he and some of his more ardent supporters would quit pissing down my leg and then tell me it’s raining.  

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            The bad news is that, as an incumbent, he takes the flack for not magically curing a bad economy in a year of casting one of 100 votes.

            He also takes the flack from he Republican wrecking crew running ads saying “health care for all Americans is a communist, homosexualist, Satanist plot!”

             The good news about being an appointed incumbent…well, it’s just that he has the office and the power that it carries and almost certainly would never have won that any other way.  But, unlike the Bennetistas, I refuse to believe that a back-room deal between Ritter and Bennet strips me of the right to vote for a candidate of my own choice.

            Appointees simply don’t deserve the deference at primary time that elected incumbents, like Ritter himself, deserve, in this farm boy’s view.

            • Middle of the Road says:

              (preferably with an iota of evidence) that there was a backroom deal between Ritter and Bennet.

              And when the “appointee” is doing a damn good job and there isn’t an iota of difference in the two candidate’s policies and beliefs, then I have absolutely zero reason to fire someone and replace him with somebody who keeps telling me I should hire him because he’s more popular. That may have worked when Saint Romanoff was in high school. It doesn’t quite hold water in the adult world.

            • MADCO says:

              But, unlike the Bennetistas, I refuse to believe that a back-room deal between Ritter and Bennet strips me of the right to vote for a candidate of my own choice.

              No one wants to deny you your vote.

              Have a primary, support Romanoff for whatever reasons you choose (as yet unspecified)  but can we agree to keep the seat D?

              I’ll support the D nominee whoever it is. Will you?

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                All I know is that I had zero say, nada, zilch.  Ritter annointed Bennet.  Period.  One man, one vote.  Ok, so I had no say.  But that also means I have no buy-in.  Ritter passed over the obvious choice, Hickenlooper, because he wants to be the big frog in the Democratic pond, IMO.  But while I have no animosity toward Bennet, I also don’t owe him anything.

                If he wants my vote, he’s got to earn it.    

                • MADCO says:

                  Any candidate should have to earn your vote  -  I agree with that.

                  And those are all fine reasons to oppose Ritter and the appointment process. And even to withhold judgement on Bennet until you get to know him.

                  Why for Romanoff?

                  • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                    Ideologically, not much to choose between them.  But Romanoff excelled in putting together coalitions, working in bipartisan fashion, in the lege.  Even as minority leader, he got a lot done.  He picks good assistants, as he did with Cary Kennedy and a host of other stars.  This state is much better off because of his leadership on Ref C and other issues.

                     I also know Bennet quite well and we’ve had at least a dozen face-to-face talks over the years.  Give him his due, he interviews well.  But he’s literally never run for dogcatcher. In large groups, he leans to the soporific.  In an appointive job, like school supt., I think he was very effective.  But the U.S. Senate is an elected political office and both to get there and to excel there takes the kind of political skills Romanoff has demonstrated many times and that Bennet hasn’t.

                      The disturbing thing about these polls is that Bennet’s negatives grew so much between polls.  That suggest that as voters get to know him, they don’t like him.  More realistically, it suggests that the Republican attacks are defining Bennet before he defines himself.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Thanks for that.

                      “…attacks are defining Bennet before he defines himself.”

                      Well, someone is defining him.  

                      He should be more in front of us , in front of Colorado.  Romanoff has years worth of contacts and party building track record.   Sure the Senator has been to all 64 counties and did the town hall thing.  And then he got busy in DC. But he needs to be here campaigning more.

                      Why do you think AR has lagged so much in fundraising?  

                    • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                      I believe the attacks come from the left wing of the democratic party that stands for compromising on nothing.

                      That’s clear from this board.

                      It would be ineteresting to see the sample used, and the political spectrum represented by that sample.

                    • MADCO says:

                      It would be ineteresting to see the sample used, and the political spectrum represented by that sample.

                      Yes, but they did not report that.  My understanding is that even when they do reveal methodology and exact script, they don’t weight respondents by party affiliation to reflect the voting population nor do they adjust in other helpful ways.

                      Doesn’t matter- polls don’t really matter now except in the broadest of strokes. The data from this round of Rasmussen doesn’t tell us anything relevant about the D primary. It does tell us that in Colorado the 2010 election cycle is going to be about energized R’s and R-leaning U’s and low turnout will kill the D’s.

                • Ralphie says:

                  Get the constitution changed.

                  It’s easy.  Just hire Jon Caldara.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          a sane defender/supporter of Andrew for a change. Man, it’s good to have you back. Now, if we can just convince Lauren to stick around…

    • MADCO says:

      http://www.rasmussenreports.co

      Dec 11

      Norton 46 v Bennet 37   Norton +9

      Norton 45 v Romanoff 34  Norton +11

      Buck 42  v Bennet 38  +4

      Buck 41 v Romanoff 39  +2

      Wiens 42/41 over Bennet  +1

      Wiens 41/40 over Romanoff +1

      Sep 16

      Norton 45 v Bennet 36   Norton +9

      Norton 42 v Bennet 34   Norton +8

      Buck and Wiens question wasn’t reported in Sep.

      I read this data from Rasmussen and I think several things, though

      Romanoff outperforms his primary opponent among voters of every political party, every age group, and every other demographic category. (Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 8, 2009)  Andrew has consistently earned the highest ratings since entering the race. (Rasmussen, Sept. 15, 2009)

      wouldn’t be one of them.

      What does jump out is that 13 and 11 months prior to election day, polled voters want to vote against the status quo, the President’s party.  No surprise in the mid-term after a Presidential election.    The surprising part is that anyone would claim this is the good news.

      The favorable/unfavorable and even the “strong” f/u are meaningless at this point.  Example- Rassmussen doesn’t report who was polled, but I’d guess that there is a positive number of Colorado voters who will vote for Bennet in the general if he’s the nominee but who would poll strong unfavorable, voters who want the seat to stay D but don’t like Bennet.  But even there Rasmussen acknowledges that this far out the f/u data is useless*, and only the “strongly” f/u might be indicative.

      *”Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.”

      Sep

      Bennet  19% very unfavorably.

      Romanoff  20% very unfavorably

      Dec

      Bennet 28% view him very unfavorably

      Romanoff 18% very unfavorably

      Why the AR movement from Sep to Dec?

      Could the JO/Sharon message be working?  (Bennet sucks, AR is great  )

      Could it be that the respondents are reacting to health care- where AR generally gets a pass – and so those who think the  health reform bill goes too far dump on Bennet and those who think health reform doesn’t go far enough also dump  on Bennet?

      What this poll tells me is that anyone who thinks Colorado has gone Blue and can safely stay D is nuts.  

      The D nominee will have my support and vote whomever it is.    But a lot of other de-motivated D’s and indifferent U’s will  not feel that way.    I’m pretty sure that several AR supporters don’t feel that way.  

      2010 is going to be very different from 2008 – no matter what the D party leaders in Denver/Adams/Arapahoe and Douglas Counties think.  We need to start running against the R’s now (Norton and Wiens) not in mid-Aug.

      Let’s have a primary. But let’s have the kind of primary where we get a stronger D nominee than we would have had otherwise. Not the kind of  circular firing squad where whomever is left standing gets crushed by the R nominee. The kind where one candidate attempts to make whatever reality is out there a strength even if it results in weakening the party’s nominee and therefore the party.  We’ll see the 4Q numbers soon enough, but if AR doesn’t demonstrate he can raise 12-13mm by June, he should acknowledge he can’t win and get out.

    • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

      We’re saying that the statement that Romanoff has consistently polled better in all of these polls is just not true. You can cherry pick different parts of the poll where Romanoff looks better than Bennet, or vice versa, but you CANNOT say that Romanoff consistently outpolls Bennet with any sort of truth.

    • Automaticftp says:

      Sen. Bennet led Mr. Romanoff 41-27.  At the time, the AR apologists said it was simply name recognition–nothing more.  An interesting assertion since AR’s advantage was supposedly that everyone knew him.  

  5. Sharon Hanson says:

    Ho-hum I’m just not that into you Colorado Pols or what you say.

    See if you can inject some objectivity in your biased opinions. It will help make the sight more interesting.

    • Ralphie says:

      Did you ever answer that question that three readers asked you yesterday?

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Which made it simple to demolish their biased constructions.

      for example, their false claim

      In both polls, Bennet outperforms Romanoff by a small margin against potential matchups with Republicans Jane Norton and Tom Wiens.

      is contradicted by the fact that Romanoff, who loses by 8 pct, does insignificantly better than Bennet, who loses by 9 pct, in the September poll.  I could do with less bias on Pols’ part but at least they respected us enough to post their sources and that forgives a multitude of sins.

      • redstateblues says:

        Either Pols’ or yours, until someone can show me a poll where a higher percentage of voters say they would vote for AR than would vote for MB.

        I don’t know if there’s been direct head-to-head matchups for the primary or not, but I don’t think either campaign can claim a lead in the polls until that happens.

        Doing less badly, or having lower unfavorables, is not “leading in the polls”.

        Your point is valid Voyaguer, but it’s all spin until something more solid comes along.

      • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

        We’re not spinning anything. The polls we linked to BOTH SHOW THAT BENNET DOES BETTER THAN ROMANOFF. Again, not by much, but that’s not the point. The point is that Romanoff’s campaign keeps claiming that he consistently polls better than Bennet, which JUST ISN’T TRUE.

        • MADCO says:

          to potential D supporter and donors certainly helps create the impression that everyone knows he’s great compared to Bennet.

          Frankly- it’s the right message.  ANd if this is cause Bill R. is on board, points to him.  If, however, Bill R. doesn’t really care whether this seat stays D if it can’t be his guy, what are we doing?  

          • redstateblues says:

            Is this the beginning of the Romanoff campaign going negative?

              • redstateblues says:

                We’re all in a lot of trouble. I don’t think that’s true though.

                Even though this isn’t the first time that AR’s campaign has come out with something like this, it’s the first time they’ve done it in a way that attacks Bennet. Everything else that AR has attacked Bennet on so far has been valid IMO, until now. If not valid, it’s at least been based on the issues.

                It just seems like there’s not really anywhere else to go except negative. Maybe it’s not that the surrogates reflect the campaign, but that, after a while, the surrogates do affect the campaign.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          We’re not spinning anything. The polls we linked to BOTH SHOW THAT BENNET DOES BETTER THAN ROMANOFF.

          No, they don’t.  the September poll shows Romanoff trailing by 8 points, Bennet by 9.  I’ll grant you that the difference in statistically insignificant.  But for you to claim that Both polls show Bennet does better than Romanoff isn’t spin, it’s a flat-out, stink up the barnyard lie!  You screwed up, why did yourself a deeper hole by making a claim that is so easily disproven?

          A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Colorado voters finds Bennet trailing former Republican Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton 45% to 36%. Norton formally announced her candidacy on Tuesday.

          In that contest, seven percent (7%) like some other candidate, and 12% are undecided.

          Another newcomer, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, is expected to announce his candidacy today (Wednesday), challenging Bennet for the Democratic Senate nomination next year. In a match-up with Norton, the highest profile Republican in the race so far, Romanoff is down by eight points – 42% to 34%.

  6. redstateblues says:

    I think polls are pretty much meaningless this far out from election day other than to show that there’s an inherent advantage for Republicans right now, no matter who they are. You can get a general sense of voter sentiment–even though I’m still wary of using solely Rasmussen as means of measuring that sentiment–but I don’t think that these numbers will match the final percentages on election day.

    I also think it’s weird that they don’t do primary head-to-head matchups, just potential general election matchups. It’s a really odd to argue about who’s stronger using this kind of data. The only thing these polls show is that the Republicans are stronger–or that Dems are weaker–not the strength or weakness of any particular candidate.

  7. caroman says:

    Actblue.org contributions received as of now:

    Michael Bennet    $1,323,634

    Andrew Romanoff    $247,518

    Notice how far over to the right I had to shift the dollar sign to report AR’s contributions.  

    Romanoff has zero policy differences with Michael Bennet and his fundraising is pathetic.  This race barely qualifies as a “challenge” and should end within weeks.

  8. Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

    I’ve been pointing out falsehoods  for awhile.

    I thought that this would improve with the new campaign manager.

    I guess that I was wrong.

  9. Have some respect for AR – he’s still one of the best street fighters you have out there

  10. Jambalaya says:

    …I can’t stand it.  And I’ve been known to stand for a lot!  

    Polls show me winning!  No, you losing!  No, support me because I smiled brightly while being elected before (without opposition)!  No, reject him because he did it in the back room (or, he had the nerve both to ask for the job and get it)!  No, support me because doing so will show everyone that you have rights to ask for things!

    This is all so silly and accomplishes little.  Ready your next round of fire at Senator Norton, y’all.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.