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%
July 26, 2010 06:54 PM UTC
24 Comments
you mean we could have ended up with McCain? I know — as I said I did what I could to help elect Obama.
I see a certain irony in Obama’s comments — the same statements he made about McCain apply to Michael Bennet.
And $2 trillion less in debt.
Don’t feel bad, Stryker. I fell for it, too.
“We’d be out of a recession.”
And people say liberals are dreamers.
Obama supports Michael Bennet. Do you know why? Because Obama was a smart politician then, and he is a smart politician now.
I mean Barack has all our backs. Something about the White House supporting all sitting Senators because he needs our votes on stuff.
Because he’s focused on advancing the agenda we elected him to advance. The rest is just noise.
Maybe you and I can go knock some real doors sometime before you get destroyed by a Republican because you spend your time on this site instead of campaigning.
“I don’t like what you’re saying, so I’ll make some unrelated disparaging comment about your campaign.” Wow, you really proved
yourmy point….I knock on real doors almost every day, during the same hours that all candidates knock on real doors….
No, Obama supports Michael Bennet because he picked Michael Bennet.
and FMB has just illustrated the issue quite nicely. The most important conflicting camps in politics, as I see it, aren’t “Democrats” v. “Republicans,” or “Progressives” v. “Conservatives,” or “True-Blue Populist Democrats” v. “Yellow-Dog Democrats,” but rather “Reasonable people of goodwill, and at least a touch of humility, striving to work together to confront the challenges of a complex and subtle world” v. “Blind ideologues more strongly drawn to belligerence than reason, who applaud and repeat whatever is said that is designed to make them applaud and repeat.”
I don’t know who would be the better senator, or who would have a better chance in the general election, or who is most likely to win the primary, though I have my position on the first two, and make my arguments. And I don’t lash out blindly at those who disagree with me on these matters, because differences of opinion on such matters should not be cause for lashing out blindly. If only everyone in my party had the good sense, and goodwill, to feel the same way. But those who don’t are a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution, no matter what their party registration may say.
I finally live somewhere where my vote counts, a swing state. I joined this site to become more informed about the issues and candidates of my adoptive state. I can’t go to events, speeches, or parties. My links to the issues are necessarily through newscasts, newspapers and sites like these. I hate not being informed.
I’ve read and participated in the pointless and the profound arguments daily for 2ВЅ months now. The Dems on this site are quick to point and chuckle at the implosion of the Colorado GOP. I only hope the Dems can show we’re better disciplined than they are. No matter who wins this primary, I hope ALL Dems can remember what Party unity looks like.
I joined this site to find a community…
The guy you are supporting has had every advantage. We all know incumbency conveys a tremendous advantage. At least usually you have to get elected to get incumbency. Not Bennet.
Incumbency means other politicians feel compelled to support him and PACs and individuals feel compelled to contribute to his campaign. It would be bad business not to. And Bennet has the President and OFA. That means on day one Bennet got the President’s email list, not to mention the mass emails that get sent out on Bennet’s behalf. Which leads to more money.
Bennet got a 1+ year head start and the aura of incumbency even if there was no real incumbency. There is a large group of Dem voters out there who feel Romanoff should have been appointed but lean Bennet because he was appointed. Bad reasoning if you ask me but they are out there.
And Bennet has the Denver Post. Possible White House involvement in the appointment, the intern email, Theresa Pena’s blocking action against full disclosure of DPS’s finances — all non-stories according to the Post. But Romanoff’s website header and the DPS board member fighting for disclosure …headline news. There’s a lot of disgrace to go around on the Bennet side of this campaign.
The playing field is uneven, drastically uneven. Bennet would have no chance against Romanoff if the playing field was even.
If Bennet loses no Bennet supporter in their right mind could say the election was unfair. So it’s easy for you to preach unity. You had your cake and ate it too.
But if Romanoff loses, we Romanoff supporters will feel cheated. Because we are being cheated. And the people of Colorado are being cheated.
If the cows had balls, they’d be bulls.
If wishes were horses, we’d all be riding.
And so on.
Boo hoo.
Your guy didn’t get appointed and had to run against the incumbent, which is really hard. Really really.
Even now Colorado D’s are filling in ballots. and in rwo weeks we’ll know who they chose – and whoever it is will by definition be the people’s choice.
is Bennet’s fault? Bennet didn’t create the atmosphere of incumbency. Are you suggesting that if Romanoff had been appointed he would have turned down all the help or advantages that comes with being an incumbent? No president’s e-mail list? No endorsements from other Washington politicians? I know you think Andrew is this White Knight but gimme a fucking break. If he were the incumbent he would snatch any advantage he could. Or he wouldn’t be the incumbent for long.
I actually agree that there are many Dems out there that think Romanoff should have been appointed but are going to support Bennet. It doesn’t surprise me that you find party loyalty, or job approval, or disappointment in Romanoff as “bad reasoning”. Your idea of “bad reasoning” seems to be anyone who doesn’t fall in line behind your precious Romanoff.
As to whether the race was “fair” or “unfair” seems rather subjective. And pointless. If my guy loses I will certainly be very disappointed as he’s done a remarkable job on behalf of Colorado. I may even spend a few days being angry and then maybe sad.
Then I’ll become resolved. While I will in no way donate money to Romanoff, I will do my best to get the word out to get him elected. As ineffectual as I think he will be as Senator (in relation to how super awesome and powerful he says he will be) at least it’s better than the harm a Republican will cause.
My problem with rabid Romanoff followers like yourself is this “on the cross” martyr mentality. Romanoff felt cheated cause he wasn’t picked. He needs to get over it and so do you. Seriously. Is one man’s pride so important that Romanoff supporters would let someone like Buck or Norton take the seat? Is one man’s pride so important they would let Andrew’s work in turning Colorado blue be undone? Cause losing the Senate seat to a Republican would be the first step back.
Get off the fucking cross. Someone needs the wood.
But the problem is you don’t know what they mean. I have plenty of goodwill. I am outraged by the gross injustice of the Bennet appointment. I care deeply about the democratic institutions of this country and it absolutely disgusts me to see a mockery be made of them.
So please spare us your pseudo-intellectual lectures on goodwill.
Hey, you kids get off my lawn!! And stay off, dammmit!
constituted a “gross injustice”? Was it the fact that it was Bennet that was appointed? If so you really need to realign what you consider a “gross injustice”.
Or do you have issues with appointments in general? Is so, how do you propose the filling of vacant seats?
they’d be fine with appointments if Andrew was appointed.
how has a mockery been made of our democratic institutions? Our governor appointed a senator, according to law, and that appointee must undergo the electoral process at the next senatorial election, according to law. We are having a primary process, according to law, with one faction in the party supporting the appointee as their preference, and another faction supporting a primary challenger. None of that has to be rancorous, angry, and disparaging. There’s no need for bluster and spittle. There’s no need for the ill-will that your post proclaiming your goodwill demonstrates.