U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 29, 2010 11:46 PM UTC
104 Comments
Because people like Trippi, Lake, and Caddell ain’t cheap.
Just means they will get all the money he raises and nothing will be left over for TV, radio or direct mail
Just because Andy’s new hires have succeeded in promoting candidates in 1992 and 2004 who needed little promotion doesn’t mean they can turn him into a winner in 2010 when his opponents are using their tactics times 10.
Are they working for a percentage of the funds Romanoff raises? If so, they may be disappointed.
I’m sure he’s never heard that one before.
particularly after he disingenuously promoted Carolyn Maloney while failing to disclose that he was a paid consultant for her campaign. Worse, a half dozen of his interns signed up as sockpuppets and posted comments in support of the candidate Trippi was being paid by. The conduct and failure to disclose was so outrageous that he got called out by Markos himself for his disingenuous behavior. He eventually posted an apology, link below.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
Unfortunately, this is not the first time Trippi has failed to disclose working for someone while shilling on their behalf. And with the Romanoff campaign’s recent history at Colorado Pols of creating sockpuppets on behalf of the AR effort, I’d suggest Trippi make an extra effort to disclose his relationship with the campaign if he ever decides to participate here or anywhere else on AR’s behalf.
At least two of these “consultants” are total losers. Celinda Lake was Martha Coakley’s pollster(!) And, Patrick Caddell apparently quit the Democratic Party in 1988 and denounces Democrats at every opportunity, including the Terri Schiavo case and defending the Bush Administration. No wonder he’s a favorite “Democratic” pollster on Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Kind of like Joe Lieberman.
This begs the question: Why would Andrew Romanoff want to associate with these “consultants”??
Here is information about Celinda Lake from Wikipedia:
She also served as a pollster to Martha Coakley, whose loss she credited to “the failure of the White House and Congress to confront Wall Street. She admitted to failing to run a daily tracking poll, causing some to blame Coakley’s stunning loss on her
Here is information about Pat Caddell from Wikipedia:
In 1988, Caddell left the Democratic Party after an acrimonious lawsuit with a Democratic consulting firm. Republicans would often cite Caddell’s tirades against the Democratic Party on the floor of the House and the Senate.[1][2][3]
According to researchers, Caddell had wide influence in the Carter White House, and was the chief advocate of what later became known as Carter’s “malaise speech”.[4]
His analysis on polls and campaign issues often puts him at odds with the current leadership of the Democratic Party. He has been criticized as often attacking Democratic politicians and predicting the downfall of the Democratic party.[5] Critics point out that he has defended the Bush administration by claiming that Republicans did not exploit the issue of gay marriage in the presidential election of 2004.[citation needed] He also denounced Democrats in the House who voted against the Palm Sunday Compromise, which sought to reinstate Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, as “cold blooded”.[citation needed] Caddell is a regular guest on Fox News
Lake is much better known for her knowledge of Western issues and candidates. Not sure what happened in Mass, but she’s pretty well known around the West as a spot-on pollster for Dems.
“the failure of the White House and Congress to confront Wall Street.
Well, she’s got a ready-made excuse when her next candidate loses, doesn’t she?
If Romanoff loses, there will be more than enough blame to go around.
I wish he would quit this campaign and keep the reputation he still has left.
posted that comment in practically every diary where AR’s name comes up.
Why don’t you print it on flyers to hand out.
We’re having a central committee meeting on the 4th at South High, check in at 5.30.
n/t
help him restrain himself from frequent press-conferences with no message, or from using party house and senate district meetings against party rules (which show a lack of respect for the Democratic party).
How this is going to play with the Radical Romies. Is Pat Caddell a “true progressive?”
Do these people pass the ideological purity test?
I guess I’m not wondering that hard or I’d go over to Square State to find out.
the difference relates to the word “progress”, meaning looking ahead for something better. Lately, it means a liberal who whines.
Were Democrats who voted to kill Terri Schiavo “cold blooded”? That’s the real question.
Per the trail record, Terri Schiavo chose (as we’re told by her husband’s second hand reporting of her wishes) not to extend her life by artificial means.
The Democrats chose not to inject the federal courts into a decision that had been adjudicated to the end of the appelate process so as to keep her alive against her wishes.
If you think anyone “voted to kill” her, you’re a Palinesque propagandist. If you’re being snarky, my apologies. Right to die is an important issue to me. An emoticon always helps 😉
No, it’s not a serious question, but it’s one Caddell asked. This guy isn’t the savior consultant he’s being portrayed as.
…Is the Palinesque propagandist.
I seem to remember reading that he hadn’t worked on a winning campaign since Carter ’76, but couldn’t find a source to verify.
I kind of like it.
He clearly leans to the middle, not center left, not moderate left. MIddle.
But the campaign needed some juice.
My guess is that the campaign thought they could wait until after a good caucus showing to hire big name talent and then realized it was risky taking a good caucus showing for granted.
Maybe the AR campaign took in $1million + 4Q09.
Maybe they’ll do it again 1Q10.
Maybe the blue unicorn will show it self right before caucus and the green leprechaun right after.
Maybe.
is no progressive either. He’s DLC. I’m still not seeing anything coming from his camp detailing how his votes would be so different from Bennet’s, where his policy positions would be so different, absolutely nothing .
It’s all the same boy scout stuff about how he wouldn’t be owned by Wall Street. OK, so does that mean he would have voted against Bernanke? Does he want Geithner to go? Does he oppose the structure of the bail out? Would he have voted against on principle? Does he feel differently about stimulus? Would he have voted against the Senate health reform Bill that Bennet voted for? Where’s the beef?
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and you can’t make a champion of progressive idealism out of somebody with AR’s centrist DLC track record. He needs to find something reality based to run on. He certainly has tons more legislative experience but he hardly mentions that in his campaign lit.
Unless he would vote very differently from Bennet it doesn’t make sense to keep harping so exclusively on who is owned by whom. And now he’s hiring one of Fox News’ favorite go to Dem bashing Dems? Huh?
He could hardly position himself as the consummate outsider if his main rationale is his wheeler-dealer legislative background.
can’t miss problem?
Or is it one of the little hard to see ones?
Wow. The Bennet trolls really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Attacking Romanoff’s pollster? You’re telling me that Coakley could have run if she had a better pollster?
Romaonff stands by his convictions, one being that his party doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas. Where better to get that perspective than from Mr. Cadell?
n/t
are you saying we need more bipartisanship?
Is that the campaign’s message or just yours?
Lake is a great pick for AR.
He could also close the fundraising gap by selling tickets to the consultant meetings featuring Trippi and Caddell.
Watch the purse strings Andrew.
Romanoff will have plenty of money so why not start hiring high priced, high powered consultants, right? Good time for him to get his ducks in a row for the caucus which is only 6 weeks away.
he’ll do well enough in the caucuses, and needs to get a serious team in place to get moving after that.
their organizations. He just replaced his spokesman last week, too. He’s not the only one doing it–seems pretty normal to start beefing up the campaigns with more experienced staff and getting prepped for the election year.
I think Celinda Lake sounds like a good pick up. Color me completely unimpressed with Trippi who has been on some campaigns recently that went absolutely nowhere (what’s the guy’s name that ran for the Senate in 2008 and lost by 33%?)
And don’t forget his role as senior advisor to the John Edwards campaign. Look at how well that worked out.
I can never remember Tuke’s name. Oh, and I forgot about Edwards campaign. I notice they don’t mention working for him in their press release. 🙂
Edwards did what he did.
believe me, A LOT of us were quite disappointed with that turn of events.
made me shift from being a candidate fan to an issues fan.
Issues don’t change from one day to the next the way a candidate can.
I just find it amusing how they skip over that consultation as though it never existed. Ah, how I love the art of politics.
mad when I think about the hard work I did for Edwards.
oh well, would have never gotten a radio show if I hadn’t done so.
(or into blogging for that matter.)
I had more than a few friends who worked so hard for him and they are really angry and truthfully, quite hurt, at what he has done. But something good came out of it for you and for that, I am sincerely glad, Wade.
You were suckered.
Deal with it.
wasn’t good enough to make him a contender.
Oh, wait … maybe it’s not such a good idea to celebrate Trippi’s arrival in Colorado.
Not “was.” He is a scumbag and proving to be a bigger one every single day. I was never a supporter of his but I know some folks that were. I feel for them because they now look at this entire episode and feel betrayed, deceived and worst of all, some of them have openly admitted that they are now doubting their own judgment when it comes to candidates.
I liked Edwards a lot early on. I kept trying to ignore the slickness, the obscenely ostentatious home, etc. I was wrong to try to ignore those early warnings and know just how lucky we got when he imploded.
Scott Brown went from 0 to 60 in two months flat, and some states still don’t have candidates for Senate vacancies. The question is whether he can make up ground he’s ceding while he flounders or backtracks — Bennet has been chugging ahead for a year now.
Bennet has $2.5M to spend on the primary and looks like the Romanoff dream team is already getting traction for the Romanoff message:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
I love a guy who rules his life by low expectations. 🙂
linking to Wade’s diary with the subject line: “Huffington Post Takes a Look at US Senate race” or something to that effect.
I think they could have just as easily said “Colorado Pols takes a looks at US Senate race” and linked to Wade’s post here.
I think it’s a little disingenuous of the Romanoff campaign to be passing off Wade’s rambling diary, and the conclusions and opinions therein, as coming from anyone other than Wade.
And slimy. And yet another reason why I can’t support him. God, he really is the ultimate politician at heart, isn’t he?
Fuck this. I’m going outside to look at the moon–supposed to be the clearest evening with the best moon of all of 2010 or something like that. I took a quick peek and wow, is it ever stunning. The mountains look like somebody shined a flashlight on them. Great evening for a night hike.
the campaign to email the story,
i suppose the campaign felt it was a good story for his supporters to read.
As I wrote the article, I thought about the numerous people who have stated that there is no real difference between the two candidates
such as this”
I find this argument prevents a real discussion of the issues that the founders of our democracy wanted to occur through the primary process.
I have highlighted clear issues where I think Bennet has not lived up to my expectations on environmental issues and added what others saw as shortcomings on the fiscal responsibility commission, like mcjoan from daily kos.
That being said, i have merely put the ball in Andrew Romanoff’s court – he has an opportunity here – but it is not guaranteed. He must take this opportunity to distinguish himself from Senator Bennet’s positions.
if not, he will find a lukewarm reception from those that have supported the primary process.
That they could have just as easily printed a truncated version of what you wrote as a letter to the editor in the Denver Post, and then said “Check out what the Denver Post has to say about the US Senate race”.
It’s totally disingenuous to pass off your commentary as anything other than your opinion.
opinion commentary.
What is there to “pass off?”
As “Huffington Post’s” take, rather than Wade Norris’ take. They are two very different things. Just as the letters to the editor are different from the editorial board.
The e-mail should have said “Check out Wade Norris’ opinion on the Senate race”, but that just doesn’t pop the same way I suppose.
HP show the author of the post?
But the process by which diaries are posted on HP Denver is virtually the same as Denver Post letters to the editor. Romanoff also could have mentioned that it was HP Denver and not the main HP page.
My point was that Wade posted that diary in a number of places. HP Denver just happened to be one of them.
The Romanoff campaign was trying to pass off Wade’s commentary as something other than just Wade’s commentary. They were trying to make it sound like it was coming from a reputable source by over inflating the importance of it being on a site like Huffington Post Denver.
you do make AR sound extremely devious, indeed. [snark]
Well, gotta go grocery shopping.
Last Tuesday, I asked AR directly, “What specific policy differences do you have with Senator Bennet?” At first, he waffled and didn’t answer the question, talking about his past record instead. Finally, he mentioned cramdown and a concealed weapons bill.
Period. End of story.
Those are not significant differences in my opinion. I believe primaries make sense when there are two candidates in the same party who would vote differently on important issues (see, Lamont/Lieberman). That is not the case here.
This primary “challenge” needs to end right after Romanoff reports his pathetic fourth quarter fundraising numbers no later than Monday. Tick-tock.
holier than thou crap anyway. Since AR’s policy stands and potential votes are, no doubt, almost identical to Bennet’s the campaign is clearly trying to say as little about issues as possible. The only significant difference is AR’s superior legislative experience and that, as RG points out, doesn’t go with the whole I’m the outsider thing.
After all, he got all that wheeling and dealing legislative experience having spent most of his adult life as a (gasp) politician. A centrist politician. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Unless you’re trying to run as a political outsider and grass roots progressive champion. Then it’s a little inconvenient. And pretty funny.
No one says Romanoff can’t re-invent himself as a progressive populist. Mitt Romney’s new persona was even more at odds with his previous one.
that did not win Mitt the presidential primary? Even so, I agree with you because Romanoff is clearly having a lot of success re-inventing himself with a whole lot of lefties. But will re-invention be enough to overcome Bennet’s advantage?
Yep, the one that left Romney’s former friends shaking their head and still didn’t get him a seat at the table with the cool kids.
and if the Republican primary system were anything like the Democrats’ (i.e., proportional rather than winner-take-all), Romney would have won.
As I recall he was still winning (or barely losing) when he dropped out, in terms of the number of pledged delegates. I always found it strange that reporters never mentioned that.
Plus he’s still talked about seriously for 2012. Nothing gets you a first-class ticket to the Republican nomination like losing a whole bunch of primary elections in a previous cycle.
which states Romney did well in, and which were ahead when he dropped out. No, he wasn’t a total dud like Fred Thompson, but his reinvention left both his old and new friends at least slightly distrustful of him.
Perhaps this will enlighten them–enjoy the Glenn Beck video–this is who Romanoff is adding to his campaign. Wow, what a bold progressive he is turning out to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
join the AR campaign too?
you’re not calling him a “career politician” are you?
I heard he hates to be called that.
Because the new media director for the campaign (Squarestate) thinks Pols is eeeeee-vil. The only interest they have in Pols is to bash it, especially after their brazen attempt to steal the election for FPE and install their own sockpuppet failed miserably.
“Slimy” is a word I would also use.
Nothing new there, only they have become more strident as more and more readers abandon Johne’s blog…well, the ones left he hasn’t outed or run off.
And all these other big names.
If nothing else, seems like someone got the memo that started circulating here on CoPols.com several months ago – those guys didn’t know what they were doing.
Maybe the new crew will be more …messagy and fundable.
you should not be posting that here. No one believes that MOTR made front page editor without the help of sock puppets. JO was a much more deserving writer and MOTR well she just likes people “pissing on her leg” and writing condolences with signatures lines that are anything but consoling.
Pols looked at the election and found the only one gaming the system was a Romanoff supporter named triguardian, who was caught creating over a dozen sockpupppets so he could vote in the election to become a front pager.
If you need proof, Sharon, please use the link I have provided or I can save you some time from fact checking and provide the quote:
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
You don’t have to like me, Sharon but you do have to tell the truth.
It’s so much fun. But I have to run now time to read a book. You really should try it sometime. It might help you to come back to reality.
But first, please do run along while the getting is good, since you have no other recourse than to apologize and we both know you are incapable of it. Time for you to head back to the kid’s table–I don’t think you’re quite ready for the grownups.
Here’s your gift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
This is who your guy is hiring. You must be so proud.
You’re welcome.
It would have made more sense for AR to have hired Glenn Beck. They support the President about the same.
I love to exchange titles. Here’s what I’m currently working on–I highly recommend both if you haven’t already read them:
Open Veins of Latin American by Eduardo Galeano
Istanbul by Orhan Pamuk
really? pray tell, who all is included in that “no one” ?
-just anther MOTR sockpuppet
I might be tempted to take you seriously, except NO ONE takes you seriously.
Even if your accusation had merit, which I don’t think it does, you can probably now see the corner into which you have painted yourself with your incessant bullshit.
Put on your tinfoil hat and go post at Squarestate. They might not believe you either, but at least they might agree with you.
it has anything to do with the lack of traffic here? I’ve never seen more than 35 users logged in; maybe I’m just logging in at the wrong time.
hardly any traffic here at CoPols. So why link to this site?
Except for a few posters, everyone here supports Bennet, so it would make sense for Bennet to link here, but not Romanoff.
if he gets clobbered at caucus I think just about everyone will acknowledge what some have said for some time: it’s over.
see 1:35
http://www.garagetv.be/video-g…
Out here in the hinterland, Romies have been working the phones for weeks.
Even called me, and I haven’t been registered D in years. Must have an old list.
Turnout this year is very hard to predict, but my best guess is Romanoff 55-60, Bennet 40-45. But a lot can happen in six weeks.
They just called me the other day (I am a registered Dem)–I had a nice conversation with a volunteer named Sheila. We had a brief but good chat.
in on Andy’s attendance sheet the same way I did, Ralphie? I’ve received no less than 5 calls from his camp since. At first I thought they were targeting me as precinct chair. Now, I’m not sure.
“Three or four years from now, we’re not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff.” -Scott McInnis
But gave no other information.
If he doesn’t get 60% it’s a big loss.
If they’re essentially 50/50- he got clobbered.
The Pro-Choice people are very fond of her.
What this looks like is that more professional campaign people are feeling a lot more comfortable getting onto the Romanoff campaign then before. You don’t want to put your name on a campaign doomed to failure – it doesn’t look good on the resume. So this is defiantly a solid move away from the campaign beginnings.
I’m speaking from personal experience here.
Why no calls to our house? Maybe they know I’m a Bennet supporter but my wife was at the the caucuses in ’08 and I don’t know who she’ll vote for so they sure don’t.
If they’re focusing on the precinct leaders and above – we know none of the people who were running the show last time so their recommendation won’t carry any weight.
I think Romanoff may find he has a chunk of the votes that love him, but possibly over 50% that go “who?” and vote for Bennet.
I don’t think I have received any calls from Romanoff either, and I’m an area coordinator for the Dems. I have been invited to two Bennet house parties, but I do know one of the hosts so that may be what got me on that list.
I have received email from both Romanoff and Bennet.
And I see a lot of probable Democratic primary voters supporting Andrew. Bennet doesn’t have a chance and we’ll have a Republican Senator for sure if Bennet wins the Democratic primary. But he won’t. Because most Democrats, except a few here on Bennet.pols will support Andrew Romanoff for Senator.
Keep dreaming and supporting the special Bennet – special interest Bennet that is.
Since Romanoff and Bennet poll roughly equally in general election match-ups, do you have any basis other than your intense dislike of Bennet for saying this?
isn’t appealing in a political way, so if the repub candidate is more appealing, IMO, he will lose [just like Coakley lost to what’s his name].
It helps to have some charisma as a candidate, regardless of party.
They are none of those things.
Romanoff and Bennet keep wearing pants, so I can’t tell. I’ve been waiting for the summer season, when hopefully they’ll put on a bathing suit or something. The campaign season just starts too damn early for me anymore. Who wants to see politicians bundled up in suits in the winter?
Scheduler? AA? Maybe personal sec.?
n/t
Buy 3 / Get one free?