So…What happens if Romanoff pulls it off?

(Very interesting discussion – promoted by DavidThi808)



Okay.

Fine.

Everyone here has been losing their minds slowly since Romanoff threw his hat into the ring for the US Senate race.  I’ve worked with Romanoff on a number of things, and I’ve only met Bennet once or twice, so I do have a personal bias in this thing.  However, that’s not the topic of this diary.

The question is, once the D and R primaries shake themselves out, if Romanoff ends up with the Democratic nomination, how the hell does he fund his campaign?

The only thing I can think of is that any corporate/pac money that would have gone to Bennet in the last 3 months ends up in 527 buys supporting Romanoff, while Norton/Buck keeps raking in the Oil, Rx, etc. cash into their coffers.  However, there are opinions out there which suggest that the DSCC and other national groups will abandon Colorado altogether and put their resources elsewhere…unless Romanoff reneges on his promise to not accept pac money, which would be disastrous for him.

What, pray tell, do you think, polsters?

275 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ThillyWabbit says:

    Ergo there is no more money. Nobody is going to spend money independently on a race that has no GOTV operation.

    Romanoff may be hell-bent on running into a burning barn, but he can not expect the large funders to follow him.

    • wade norris says:

      a 527 spending on Romanoff – looks like the money is coming in –

      and when the President does his gracious thanks to Bennet and endorses Romanoff,  - Just as he did with Specter and Sestak,

      the money will come in and the DSCC will start supporting him.

      The President is a pragmatist.

      • glasscup says:

        At all. Not after the negative things they’re staffers (Polly Baca) had to say about Obama.

        Obama picked his guy. They’ll use resources elsewhere.

      • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

        I’m not surprised.

        • ThillyWabbit says:

          Individuals can and do fund 527s. A 527 is by definition a 527. They can be funded by individuals, corporations, labor unions, whatever.

            • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

              527 falls under PAC at least in 2008

              • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                do a seearch for 527

                • ThillyWabbit says:

                  And it’s not a PAC.

                  You are just flat wrong. I do this for a living, bud. Of all the things to dig your heels in about, this should not be one of them.

                  I’m agreeing with you on nearly every point. 527s are worse than PACs. And 527s are not PACs.

                • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                  Organizational Test – Section 527 Exemption

                  A political organization does not need be incorporated or otherwise have formal organizing documents. A separate bank account in which political campaign funds are deposited and disbursed only for exempt function purposes can qualify as a political organization. If an organization has no formal organizing documents, consideration is given to statements (such as a resolution) of the organization’s members when it was formed that they intend to operate the organization primarily to carry on exempt functions. Federal or state initial registration filings (for example, Statement of Organization, FEC Form 1) made by the organization under applicable election laws, also can serve as evidence that the entity meets the organizational test.

                  If an organization is formally chartered or created as a corporation, trust, or association, however, its organizing document must include a statement of purposes that limits its purposes to those described in section 527. For example, a statement that the organization’s primary purpose is to conduct one or more exempt functions would satisfy the organizational test.

                   

                  • ThillyWabbit says:

                    And that is not what a PAC is.

                    • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                      What’s your distiction?

                    • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                      Definition of Political Organization

                      Political organizations are organized and operated primarily to accept contributions and make expenditures for the purpose of influencing the “selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential electors.”   Political organizations include political party committees, Federal, State and local candidate committees and other political committees such as political action committees (PACs).

                      The law also creates a new sub-category of political organization — qualified state or local political organization (QSLPO).  A state or local organization may be a QSLPO, if it meets the following criteria:

                      All of its political activities relate solely to state or local public office (or office in a state or local political organization),

                      It is subject to state law that requires it to report (and it does report) to a state agency information about contributions and expenditures that is similar to the information that the organization would otherwise be required to report to the IRS,

                      The state agency and the organization make the reports publicly available, and

                      No Federal candidate or office holder controls it or materially participates in its direction, solicits contributions for it, or directs any of its disbursements.

                      Filing Categories

                      Federal tax law divides political organizations into several different categories, and provides different filing requirements for each category.  See the first chart below for the filing requirements for each category.

                      Federal organizations

                      FEC political committee: A political organization (including federal candidate committees, political party committees and PACs) that is required to report as a political committee under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

                      Other federal political organization:A political organization attempting to influence federal elections that is not required to report as a political committee under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

                      State and Local organizations

                      Candidate committee:A campaign committee of a state or local candidate.

                      Party committee:A state or local committee of a political party.

                      Qualified state or local political organization (QSLPO): See above definition.

                      Caucus or association:A group of state or local officials attempting to influence elections.

                      Other political organization:Any other state or local political organization.  

                    • ThillyWabbit says:

                      This is a PAC:

                      http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers

                      PACs file with the FEC and generally have the same requirements for disclosure and qualification as political parties. They have campaign finance limits and reporting schedules and are as regulated as any campaign or party committee. They can’t take money from corporations, labor unions, etc.

                      527 organizations can be PAC-like, they can even be PACs, but when they’re PACs they’re PACs. When they’re not, they’re not.

                      The ads you see by so-called 527 organizations can be funded by corporations, labor unions, individuals, whatever. And their reporting requirements are much lower, and there are no campaign finance limits.

                    • MADCO says:

                      I mean, beside FOS, are they a 527 that is a PAC or a 527 that is not a PAC?

                    • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                      I don’t see much difference in special interest money influence as the Romanoff campaign defines itself.  

              • ThillyWabbit says:

                a 527 is not a type of PAC, nor is a PAC a type of 527. You are just flat wrong on this.

      • BlueCat says:

        how he isn’t going to take any DSCC money? He’s going to have to do some serious back-pedaling on the whole purity thing if he expects to compete. Now I’m having a moment of silent prayer that it never comes to that. What a schmuck.

      • MADCO says:

        It was AR who said he didn’t want the outsider incumbent protection racket or something.  You could look it up- scroll back to January or so. Right after AR had his press conference to re-announce he was still running for the Senate.

      • peacemonger says:

        You and Andy really live in fairy-land to believe Michael Bennet’s college lawyer friends and his Dad’s friends from NPR, or Susan Daggett’s conservation/ environmentalist friends want to support Andrew Romanoff after the way he has assassinated the character of a good man.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          and I already mailed in my ballot, voting for Michael.  But I will vote for Andrew should he win the Primary–although I worry he will get creamed in the General.  Most of my other ‘conservation/environmentalist friends’ (and, believe me, I know a lot of folks in that circle) feel the same way.  Indeed, some of ‘us’ support AR now, most support MB, but all I know will vote for the Dem come November.

          Just sayin’

          This ‘debate’ has so much anger and bullshit, most might come from one side, but not all.

        • CastleMan says:

          Peacemonger, are you really saying that Democratic-leaning lawyers and environmentalists would rather have Jane Norton or Ken Buck in the Senate than Andrew Romanoff?

          I think that’s a pretty far out statement, with all due respect.

          I don’t like Romanoff’s negativity, either, but the fact is, politics is sometimes a rough game. This is not too unlike the 2008 Democratic presidential race. Hillary’s supporters threatened they wouldn’t back Obama. But in the end, it was clear he isn’t so bad.

          The same is true of Andrew. We already know his differences on policy from Sen. Bennet aren’t that vast, so why would someone who agrees with them want to ensure the election of a paleo-conservative like Buck or a lobbyist-bought chameleon like Norton?

          No, if Romanoff wins, fences will be mended. Bennet will endorse him, as will Obama, and the party will move on to the goal that it can’t lose sight of: holding that Senate seat.

    • What will happen if Romanoff is leading Buck/Norton by 5 points? What if he’s trailing by 5, 10 or 15? Won’t that affect his fundraising, especially late in the campaign?

      He has to hit the road with a good lead, I think, or he won’t get much funding.

  2. Raf says:

    What’s more, it’ll be a disaster in terms of party unity, because if Romanoff loses in November, his partisans will forever claim that he could’ve won if the DSCC had spent money, or if people had coalesced around him, or any variation thereof.

    In short, Romanoff faces the same kind of challenge that every primary challenger has in trying to unify the party after winning a bloody primary. I’d guess most Democrats would vote for him, but it’s an open question whether they do anything beyond that.

    • Ah Choo says:

      Is that if in the event of a Romanoff victory, the DSCC pulls out of Colorado (Team Romanoff’s nonsense that they will bail out a broke and divisive candidate nothwithstanding), thus there will not be a major entity funding the state party’s federal coordinated campaign (except for the DCCC in CD-4, one supposes).

      That means no genuine organized Dem turnout operation statewide. Team Romanoff can (and will) blame everyone but themselves for the down ballot slaughter that will ensue, but that’s what happens when you conduct a scorched earth campaign–you fry your own ass at the same time.

      But it will all be par for the course for Andrew The Martyr and his coalition of Mike Miles fanatics.  

      • dfarrah says:

        “That means no genuine organized Dem turnout operation statewide” is just ridiculously insulting to anyone who has ever worked on a campaign.  

        What do you think–that all the local activists just roll over and play dead because the DSCC isn’t around?

        Further, IMO, Bennet won’t win the general, regardless of the $$$ available. He obviously hasn’t decisively pursuaded the dems, even with all of his money, and all of the money he has spent so far.  He still sounds and speaks like an unconvincing schmuck [gee, I thought AR's candidacy was supposed to have improved the guy], and he simply doesn’t have much appeal.  

        If AR wins, he’ll have won despite having all the dem ‘leadership’ arrayed against him, and he’ll have won on a shoestring budget [which, btw, he has handled in an excellent manner].  Mr. Colorado Comeback is a success-oriented person, not a whiner who buys into the loser mentality that still predominates Colorado dems.

        • Steve Harvey says:

          There’s a reason for this that can’t simply be swept away as party ritualism: It’s what best serves the agenda of the Democractic Party. This is no time to subordinate that raison d’etre to a quixotic commitment to a single individual’s personal ambitions.

          • dfarrah says:

            where I’m coming from.

            Dems had been losing for 20 some odd years [and continue to do so on policy matters, given their penchant for appeasing the conservatives]…conservative notions have dominated policy analysis as well as public discourse over the past 20 years…

            Dems finally win some decisive races, they finally start turning some red states purple, etc.  Yet, they still act like losers.  They continue to accept and argue policy in right-wing terms.  They cannot bring themselves to do anything but nibble around the edges of what really needs to be done.

            I see office holders who promised change become, almost immediately upon taking office, easily influenced by the power brokers [or whatever you want to call them] to the detriment of regular people.

            So, I don’t perceive them [BO, Rahm, Polis, Markey, Bennet] as serving the interests of the dem party anymore.  I see them as having become captive of the wealthy forces that dominate policy discussion and development [or having successfully hidden their true agenda during the campaigns].  So, obviously, I’m going to support forces that adhere more closely to dem values.

            Further, we have to start somewhere, somehow.  To dismiss AR’s effort as quixotic is to simply dismiss anyone who started out small and eventually had a big impact–like the conservative movement [that started taking over everything at local levels], like Howard Dean, like the resurgent dems who finally started winning again.

            Bottom line–the current dem ‘leadership’ is neither capable of nor desires to vigorously promote the dem agenda, so my support will be going to dem challengers.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              I have some fundamental disagreements with your worldview. What we call “politics,” and government, are the more superficial aspects of a far deeper system-wide dynamic. Which party is in power, which one has a majority or the White House, certainly has tremendous leverage for moving that massive sea of the nation and its population. But that leverage is still dwarfed by the sheer mass of what they are moving. The more that is invested in any single issue, the less, on average, that is left to invest in the next one (though there is also some reinforcement of an agenda that results from successes). Backlashes are real, and the farther ahead of the center of gravity of the population as a whole those who are governing get, the stronger the recoil.

              I’ve oversimplified a bit (it’s impossible not to, and still keep a post within the range of mere universal criticism over how long it is), but the real point is that there’s a complex calculation involved, and a chaotic decentralized system through which to implement that complex calculation. The result is that the obvious moves are rarely the right or most effective ones.

              I’m going to support forces that have the greatest long-term efficacy in moving the country in the direction of greater, more equitable and more sustainable distribution of human welfare, and that means being pragmatic, being able to compromise, and being aware of and sensitive to the center-of-gravity of the society we are trying to move. That may not be as emotionally appealing as being an uncompromising zealot (and, though it probably sounds otherwise, I really mean no disrespect in using that term to paint a general orientation, one which has seduced me at times as well), but it is more effective, And the effect we have is what really counts in the end.

              • dfarrah says:

                “I’m going to support forces that have the greatest long-term efficacy in moving the country in the direction of greater, more equitable and more sustainable distribution of human welfare, and that means being pragmatic, being able to compromise, and being aware of and sensitive to the center-of-gravity of the society we are trying to move.”

                Do you realize that over the past 20 years, we have experienced the exact opposite of what you profess to support?  Do you realize it’s because of the ‘pragmatism’ and sensitivity you tout that we’re in this mess?  Clinton did not have to support NAFTA; Congress did not have to repeal the Glass-Steagal act; Congress did not have to roll over for Reagan’s and GWB’s agenda; Congress did not have to reduce taxes on capital; Obama doesn’t have to continue throwing money away on 2 wars, etc., etc.

                Do you think today’s conditions are what “the center-of-gravity of the society” wants?

                Today’s wonderful conditions are the direct result of the pragmatism you tout.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  people with agendas reduce and simplify reality in ways which serve their agendas, unless their agenda is to do the best we can, in which case they resist the urge to reduce and simplify in service to rhetorical victories that undermine pragmatic efficacy.

                  You think that everything that has not gone just the way you would have preferred all conspires to prove that pragmatism is bad and zealotry is good. I think that that argument has been frequently employed in human history, and, when it has prevailed, it has only caused suffering.

                  • dfarrah says:

                    the very issue you brought up:  pragmatism.

                    To me, the pragmatism of the day is similar to using a bandaid when a crash cart is necessary.  And today’s conditions call for a crash cart, IMO.

                    I mention the effects of pragmatism over the past 20 years.  It doesn’t look pretty.

                    And apparently, you would rather discuss abstract notions or your idea of my thoughts than address the impact of dems’ pragmatism on the lives of the US citizenry.

                    Do you have any thoughts on the question I asked: Do you think today’s conditions are what “the center-of-gravity of the society” wants?

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      “pragmatism” is responsible that all that has gone wrong in the past 20 years. But you have no basis for that claim, and it is inherently untrue, if you accept as a definition of pragmatism “doing the best you can under the circumstances.”

                      In other words, real pragmatism, by definition, leads to optimal outcomes. If what you’re doing doesn’t lead to optimal outcomes, then it wasn’t really very pragmatic.

                      But let’s redefine the word “pragmatism” to mean “a moderate, compromising apporach to politics,” and accept that you are arguing that that approach isn’t really pragmatic after all. That may be true, but you haven’t made the case.

                      You have no basis for the claim because you have not isolated the variables. One variable is that some people, as in all times, have claimed to be pursuing pragmatic policies. Others have claimed to be pursuing idealistic policies. Some have just been at home knitting. Since all of these things were occurring while things supposedly went so badly, any or all of them may have been causal factors in what you are claiming went so badly.

                      Furthermore, value judgments are always made in the context of a standard. It’s important to be explicit about what that standard is, in order to evaluate the judgments. You say that things have gone badly due to pragmatism. But what are you measuring “things” against? How do you know that the implicit standard you are measuring the past 20 years against is something that would have been better approximated by what you call the better approach? What basis do you have for making the claim?

                      The Bush years weren’t characterized by pragmatism, by any definition, and I would say that things went particularly badly during those years.

                      I’ve made my case: The political and social and cultural realities of our country aren’t irrelevant; they are a major part of the challenge involved in any attempt to institute progressive change; political agendas that want to institute change had better pay attention to those variables or they will simply not be effective. That’s a real argument, that can be supported with almost every single page of world history, and almost every single bit of sociological, economic, and legal knowledge that can be mobilized in support of any argument. It’s simply reality.

                    • dfarrah says:

                      “say that “pragmatism” is responsible that all that has gone wrong in the past 20 years.”

                      I mentioned the effects of pragmatism [or what dems call political pragmatism], which have, very generally speaking, led to our plutocracy of today.

                      You leap to some rather strange conclusions.  Did I say GWB was pragmatic?  No.  The dems who rolled over for him [and for Reagan] thought they were being pragmatic.

                      And you haven’t made a case–you’ve dodged the question I asked twice.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Nor do I dance on the strings that antagonistic others pull. This isn’t an interview; it’s a disccussion, and not a very pleasant or productive one. Good night.

                    • MADCO says:

                      AR says we should evaluate actions instead of words.

                      He was the just about the most pragmatic D in Colorado for 8 years in the House.  When he had one of the safest seats you could have. And then was Speaker.

                      His actions scream PRAMATISM!!!!!

                      Yet you believe because he or someone said something progressive and even radical that he would not be a pragmatist anymore?      That’s nuts/

                      DT talked about voting for AR because if anyone who does what was done before and expects different results is deluded. Andrew is a pragmatist.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      And he’s running his campaign accordingly. It was pragmatic to distinguish himself as the candidate not beholden to special interest money. It was pragmatic to define himself as someone who would be a different kind of politician. And it was pragmatic not to be a different kind of politician in his choice of what kind of campaign message to rely on and what kind of ads to run.

                      I don’t support Bennet because Andrew isn’t enough of a pragmatist; I support Bennet because I’m enough of a pragmatist to know which one has a better chance of winning in the general election, and which one has the better knowledge and skill set to get the job done once elected.

                      Bennet’s a pragmatist; Andrew’s a pragmatist; and I’m a pragmatist. Now the trick is for us all to be good at it, working pragmatically toward shared goals.

        • Ah Choo says:

          Money. Money for staff. Money for offices. Money for phones, computers, printers, data, blah blah blah.

          All that is needed to organize people. Organization doesn’t happen because of people like you who think you understand field operations, but don’t. If that money is gone, all those things listed above don’t happen.

          If you want to know the difference, go look at a state like Colorado that had a huge Campaign for Change/DNC investment, versus a state that didn’t (e.g., Idaho).

          Chest-beating is not organization. A distinction all too many activists are unable to distinguish.  

    • CastleMan says:

      Romanoff will take DSCC funds if he is nominated.

      He’s never said otherwise, despite the pretty poor reporting to the contrary in the Colorado Statesman.

      • Shortly fter Romanoff’s press conference in January announcing he was still in the Senate race, he sat down with The Colorado Statesman for a brief interview. He had just made a point of saying he would reject PAC contributions in his campaign, so the natural question was whether this applied to the DSCC, which is a PAC. We asked whether he would also reject the help of the DSCC, a PAC, if he won the primary. His answer was unequivocal. Here is what he said:

        “I don’t welcome the outside interference. My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals – we’re not taking money from political action committees. When we win the primary, we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.”

        We reported Romanoff’s position on DSCC aid like this:

        Romanoff went even further after his speech, telling The Colorado Statesman he plans to give the cold shoulder to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, if he wins the primary in August.

        “I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” he said, eschewing PACs and special-interest donors he labeled part of an “incumbent-protection racket” in his speech.

        “When we win the primary,” Romanoff predicted, “we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.”

        If Romanoff’s position has evolved from what was admittedly an off-the-cuff answer in the middle of an interview about a number of topics, and not an official statement from his campaign, then that’s one thing. But we stand by our reporting.

        • CastleMan says:

          You may be misinterpreting Romanoff’s statement.

          “I don’t welcome the outside interference” and the comment about continued reliance on individual donations does not imply a refusal to accept DSCC dollars.

          The other quote also does not imply that.

          I believe Romanoff was talking about PAC money, not DSCC money, and nothing in the quotation can fairly be interpreted otherwise.

          • The question, however, wasn’t vague, and Romanoff’s answer was direct.

            Statesman: Since you’re rejecting PAC funding, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is a PAC, does that mean you’ll reject their help if you win the primary?

            Romanoff: I don’t welcome the outside interference. My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals – we’re not taking money from political action committees. [and so forth, as quoted above]

            If, as you suggest, he went on to make more general points about PAC funding, which is how we reported it, it’s a good question  how that should apply differently to the DSCC, which is, after all, a PAC.

            • CastleMan says:

              is your reporter’s assumption that Mr. Romanoff knew that the DSCC is a PAC. I rather doubt that most politicians, or political observers for that matter, are aware of that.

              Moreover, even if DSCC is technically a PAC, it is a different sort of organization from those PACS that represent industries or trade associations. The DSCC is a party-building organization that does not focus on one industry or particular point of view.

              Given that, I have a hard time seeing how one can reasonably conclude that Mr. Romanoff categorically ruled out acceptance of DSCC money. Certainly the reporter should have asked a follow-up question or two if he or she was intent on finding out the answer to that exact question.

              As it is, the article in question is interpreting Mr. Romanoff’s comments, which are ambiguous and subject to other interpretations.

              • ClubTwitty says:

                If not, he is really out of his league.  

                From where does the DSCC get it’s money?  

              • The question described the DSCC as a PAC, if you’ll read the transcript above. And the story, contrary to what you suggest, quoted Romanoff’s answer in its entirety.

                Romanoff was asked a precise question and gave a clear answer.

                Romanoff’s own Leadership Fund was the kind of PAC you describe as “a different sort of organization,” but the speaker dismantled that — after it had sat idle for a couple years — and hasn’t claimed that organizations like it are somehow exempt from his categorical rejection of PAC funding.

  3. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    First, the Bennet supporters will spend a day of anguish, then take a deep breath and support Romanoff. And with that will come donations. Keep in mind a lot of donations are not PAC donations.

    Second, I think Romanoff will decide the DSCC isn’t that bad once it’s supporting him. And they’ll come up with a way for the DSCC to jump in big time.

    Third, the 527s will be there helping him.

    I think he’ll do fine. More money beats less money. But if Romanoff wins, he’ll also have proven that more money isn’t everything.

    • OuiserBoudreaux says:

      Re: the DSCC

      Hmm…lies seem to be piling up for him.

    • Raf says:

      I think that’s an awfully optimistic outlook on the situation. Romanoff’s spent the last month just savaging Bennet and his supporters as the worst kind of sellouts. It’s going to take a pretty good sales job to get them to do anything more than vote for him.

      Not that it won’t happen – I fully expect that it will – but it’s going to take longer than a day.

      As for the DSCC & 527s, I’m certain that Romanoff will be interested in their services, but the real question is whether they’ll be interested in him. As it stands, if Romanoff wins the primary, my understanding is that they’ll concentrate on other states (like IL) before expending massive amounts of their cash on CO.

      The attraction of someone like Bennet is precisely that they don’t have to spend a lot of money supporting him, until the stretch run in mid-October. That obviously changes with a Romanoff victory, which is why I wouldn’t expect the DSCC to get involved in any great fashion.

      • wade norris says:

        we are one of the crucial swing states for the balance of Power in the Senate – they will be on board – and in a big way.

        The White House and DSCC made nice with Sestak – and are helping him – and with

        the Clinton Machine on Romanoff side as well as the White House – the money will come in.

        • Raf says:

          But lay off the Kool-Aid, for once.

          Unlike you, I’m familiar with the situation in Pennsylvania, because I spent a good chunk of last year working in the state. The Specter-Sestak race has no parallel to this one. The WH political office didn’t expend much of its capital in helping Specter, and were indifferent as to which candidate won.

          In contrast, if Romanoff wins, this becomes a second-tier race. I know, because I had those conversations last weekend. Romanoff would have to show the kind of fundraising ability that he hasn’t shown thus far, and the fact that he sold his house raised a number of questions.

          That’s not to say that all is lost. But to sit there & expect that the DSCC will bail Romanoff out & back him up is pretty ludicrous.

          • wade norris says:

            never said he would not accept money from the DSCC.

            And as for a second tier status for Colorado, the polling does not back you up Raf.

            http://www.dailykos.com/storyo


            The four closest battleground states — those with partisan identification gaps of less than one percent — are Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri and Virginia.

            When Romanoff wins, the DSCC knows it will have to support him – just like Sestak to hold the Senate Majority – plus the win will get national attention as another candidate that won the ‘Obama way’ – without taking PAC money – in the time of Citizens United.

            • Raf says:

              Dude, seriously.

              Arguing with you is like talking with a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon missionary. You know what you know, and fuck all for any evidence that contradicts you.

              The DSCC knows no such thing. While the DSCC is playing in Missouri, they didn’t play in Virginia until the end of the ’06 election. They took a pass on Virginia in ’08 thanks to a blowout campaign by Mark Warner. And as for Mississippi, despite the partisan identification numbers, the chances of them playing there are less than none.

              The DSCC is an incumbent protection program. Where there are open seats, they tend to look at viability. While Romanoff would’ve done well to beat Bennet, in doing so he would’ve exhausted those resources. Given the fact that there are multiple seats at play, including the President’s, the chances that they will fund Romanoff’s campaign are remote, at best.

              And let’s be clear – that’s exactly what they will have to do, because Romanoff won’t have any money left in the bank. This means that he’ll be dark on the airwaves, getting the crap pounded out of him, at precisely the wrong time.

              I know you’ve got this elaborate fantasy wound up whereby Romanoff triumphs, and immanentizes the progressive eschaton.

              Those of us in the reality-based community know different. We miss you, man, and wish you’d join us.

              • wade norris says:

                Obama

                and Bush on Arlen Specter

                Obama will support the nominee- precisely because of the Incumbent protection you mention. Just like they are now doing with Sestak – even getting Bill Clinton to give him some cover after the job offer allegations came up.

                • Raf says:

                  Look, clearly you’ve turned into the mirror image of every teabagger I dealt with in 2009. You pick and choose only the evidence that supports your pre-conceived conclusions, and dismiss everything that doesn’t.

                  Which, fine.

                  I have to say, though, having known you for a while, that this is more than a bit disappointing. You’ve become a True Believer, and essentially invested Romanoff with all manner of qualities that he doesn’t possess.

                  If and when he’s elected, and engages in the same kind of behavior that you’re now righteously denouncing Bennet for, I’m sure you’ll find some way to either defend it and say that Romanoff is engaged in eleven-dimensional chess, or you’ll say that he’s sold out and proceed to look for the next white knight.

                  Either way, it’s sad :-(

            • MADCO says:

              Wade:

              Romanoff never said he would not accept money from the DSCC.

              Romanoff

              “We reject politics as usual,” he said. “We want a senator whose loyalties won’t be divided. A senator whose judgment won’t be clouded. A senator who won’t have to pick between doing what’s right for his constituents and what’s profitable for his contributors. That’s why our campaign does not accept contributions from political action committees. I am the only candidate in this race to make that commitment.”

              Romanoff went even further after his speech, telling The Colorado Statesman he plans to give the cold shoulder to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, if he wins the primary in August.

              “I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” he said, eschewing PACs and special-interest donors he labeled part of an “incumbent-protection racket” in his speech.

              “When we win the primary,” Romanoff predicted, “we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.”

              Colorado Statesman, 1/22/2010

              Beyond that cold shoulder to the outside interference AR committed to, the DSCC is funded by PACs. How do you refuse PAC money, but accept it when the it comes fromt he DSCC?  You backtrack and change your message to suit new-found support.

              ah

              • StrykerK2 says:

                they run ads.  Ever notice the ads that run every year with something like “Republican candidate Whatever-his-name is terrible and will ruin America is you elect them…paid for by the democratic senatorial/congressional campaign committee…”

                • MADCO says:

                  Wade

                  Romanoff never said he would not accept money from the DSCC.

                  Romanoff

                  “We reject politics as usual,” he said. “We want a senator whose loyalties won’t be divided. A senator whose judgment won’t be clouded. A senator who won’t have to pick between doing what’s right for his constituents and what’s profitable for his contributors. That’s why our campaign does not accept contributions from political action committees. I am the only candidate in this race to make that commitment.”

                  Romanoff went even further after his speech, telling The Colorado Statesman he plans to give the cold shoulder to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, if he wins the primary in August.

                  “I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” he said, eschewing PACs and special-interest donors he labeled part of an “incumbent-protection racket” in his speech.

                  “When we win the primary,” Romanoff predicted, “we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.”

                  Colorado Statesman, 1/22/2010

                  Wade is wrong. (I am not surprised icyww)

                  You too.

                  Beyond that cold shoulder to the outside interference AR committed to, the DSCC is funded by PACs. How do you refuse PAC money, but accept it when the it comes fromt he DSCC?  You backtrack and change your message to suit new-found support.

            • peacemonger says:

              CS: What about the national Democrat Senatorial (Campaign) Committee? You had said earlier that you weren’t counting on getting financial support if you won the primary, or you wouldn’t take it?

              AR: Actually, this interview that you and I did, I don’t recall answering the question in the way that you all attributed it to me.

              [Editor's note: Following a press conference in January when Romanoff announced his intention to stay in the Senate race, The Colorado Statesman asked whether his position refusing to take support from political action committees extended to any support from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is a PAC, should he win the nomination. Romanoff answered, "I don't welcome the outside interference," and went on to reiterate his opposition to taking money from PACs.]

              AR: I did say in the course of the primary, we feel like Coloradans can decide this matter. It’s unusual, to be clear, for the national party to weigh in. It’s their right, I suppose – they’ve changed the rules since I was on the (Democratic National Committee) to – it’s my understanding, you could probably double check – to allow the national party to put its thumb on the scale.

      • dfarrah says:

        loyalty that has been demanded of AR supporters [you're gonna vote and work for Bennet aren't you....aren't you...AREN'T YOU????] isn’t reciprocal?  

        What a shocker.  

    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

      I was going to diary on the topic of “After the Primary”, but this one is probably close enough to make mine redundant.

      But, David, while I tend to agree with you on the funding part (but it’ll still be far less than Bennet would have at his disposal), there is one other major pirouette the Romanoff campaign will need to perform to win in November.

      In the (IMHO) unlikely event that Romanoff wins the primary, it’ll be mostly due to

      1) a low turnout

      2) his appeal to the Dennis Kucinich crowd so well represented on this site

      3) plus the loyalty of the many people that have known and respected him over the past decade

      But he’ll have to re-embrace his DLC roots in order to win in November.  That’ll be a hard pill to swallow for 2) above.  The internal dissonance generated by the disaffected Dems would be extremely costly to the campaign message machine.

      And if the primary turnout is that low, given the battle between Bennet and Romanoff, that doesn’t bode well for the Dems, regardless of the winner.

      At least the Romanoff campaign’s negative ads against either Norton or Buck won’t have to embellish the truth.  In fact, he’d probably have to tone it down a bit because simply repeating exactly what they are advocating on the economy, war and religion, followed with the obviously negative consequences of such policies, would take the breath away from any rational voter.

      But it still takes millions of dollars to get the word out while refuting the Republican candidate’s distortions of his record.  That’s why I think it’s a huge risk to merely hope that Romanoff would do a better job than Bennet has, as David believes.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        It’s

        A Democrat who is not an incumbent.

        • harrydobyharrydoby says:

          That might work among Dems to win the Primary, but in the General, “Incumbent-Democrat” will be inseparable thanks to the GOP message machine, so I think it won’t even register to the average voter.

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            I see people more upset at Congress than at either party. That turns to anger at Democrats because we’re the majority party. But the big anger is that Congress fiddles while jobs burn. That’s why Republican incumbents are in danger in many places too.

            So Republican challenger is the best label for this election, and Democratic incumbent the worst. But Romanoff can at least say he’s not an incumbent, which is an advantage over Bennet who, as much as he’ll try to avoid it, will be running as the incumbent.

            • BlueCat says:

              We’ll see on August 10th won’t we?

                • harrydobyharrydoby says:

                  David thought long and hard about his decision.  One can use logic and reason to its fullest and still reach the wrong conclusion.

                  David is no exception.

                  I try to make one mistake a day, just to keep in practice.  This is not one of them, of course.

                  • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                    I make at least one a day at work. The trick is figuring out which decision is the mistake :)

                  • BlueCat says:

                    seems very emotional in a lot of his decision making process.  The whole whether or not someone snubs him for coffee thing.  

                    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

                      You both are two of the brightest, most eloquent writers on this blog, and given the competition, that is no small accomplishment.

                      But if I may be excused for exceeding the bounds of polite familiarity, I noticed the rather dramatic shift in David’s opinions and attitude around the time he blogged about the emptying of his nest a few months ago.

                      I’m not a psychologist.  I just recall my father’s reaction when his youngest son was ready to leave home.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      I noticed the rather dramatic shift in David’s opinions and attitude around the time he blogged about the emptying of his nest a few months ago.

                      It may be true. But I think it’s due to something my mom did (at that same time). I’ll try to write that up tomorrow. It did have a direct impact on my deciding to not vote for Bennet at the state assembly.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      I certainly didn’t take offense. I know when I’m being seriously insulted and when we’re just having a bit of fun with each other. As far as that goes, the insults don’t bother me much either.  I hand ‘em out, I better be able to take ‘em.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      you can hand them out! :)

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      Speaker Romanoff sat down once and it was shortened to 1/2 hour at the last minute. If I was going to get pissy over who sat down with me, I’d be pinging Romanoff.

                      I do think meeting the public regularly is a key requirement of representative government. (Which has a high correlation with agreeing to an interview with me.)

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Whether or not someone has coffee with you is just one component.  Defensive much?  

                    • dfarrah says:

                      People are irrational, and appeals to emotions work for politicians and products.  

                      Obviously, you have not been paying attention to what people have been saying in grocery store lines, the snippets of conversation at restaurants, gas stations, etc.,, since it doesn’t fit with your notion of being ‘rational.’  

                      People of all parties are pissed off at this do-nothing Congress and ineffective President.  

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      Were you really able to type that with a straight face? It’s one thing to say the incredible amount of legislation that has been passed since Obama took office isn’t as left-wing as you would like. It’s quite another to ignore it altogether and then say they’ve done nothing.

                      You have the nerve to say others haven’t been paying attention?

                      *Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

                      *Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

                      *Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

                      *Small Business Act Temporary Extension

                      *American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

                      *Children’s Health Ins. Reauthorization Act

                      *Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

                      *Improper Payments Elimination & Recovery Act

                      *Unemployment Compensation Extension Act

                      *Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act

                      *Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act

                      *Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act

                      *Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

                      *Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act

                      *Emergency Aid to American Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act

                      *2009 Tax Breaks for Haiti Donations

                      *Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

                      *National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

                      *Independent Living Centers Technical Adjustment Act

                      *Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010

                      *Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act Effective Date Amendments

                      *Homebuyer Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010

                      *Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act

                      This is just the tip of the iceberg of signed legislation. You are free to make the argument that this legislation isn’t as strong or pure as you would like. You cannot, however, make some ridiculous claim that the President and Congress are “do-nothings” or “ineffective”.

                      If the general public believe, as you do, about our President and Congress it’s the left’s fault. We have let the Republicans and our own left-wing purists unite in their messaging.

                      As many have said before, you are more than entitled to your opinions but you don’t get your own facts. You may wish this legislation had gone farther (showing your ignorance of long view legislative process) but you don’t get to claim that nothing has been accomplished.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      This I think is the core problem with Congress. The people are hurting because of some fundamental problems and Congress trots out a list like this and says “hey, we’re doing good stuff.” When the house is burning down talking about the nice redecorating job on the kitchen is not terribly interesting.

                      What people want to see is simple. They want well paying jobs for everyone, they want an economy that is vibrant, and they want a financial system that benefits the people and small business.

                      And nothing else counts if those three items aren’t addressed. When people say “nothing accomplished” what they mean is “nothing critical accomplished.” They’re right and any incumbent running on a record of items accomplished deserves to lose for being clueless.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      They want well paying jobs for everyone, they want an economy that is vibrant, and they want a financial system that benefits the people and small business.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      But do you think Congress is focused on those three thing? I don’t see it. It’s on the agenda but it’s not getting done.

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      be on the agenda. It has nothing to do with what should or should not be the ONLY thing Congress should be working on.

                      My list was in response to an idiotic assertion by dfarrah that:

                      People of all parties are pissed off at this do-nothing Congress and ineffective President.

                      Now to your idiotic assertion:

                      What people want to see is simple. They want well paying jobs for everyone, they want an economy that is vibrant, and they want a financial system that benefits the people and small business.

                      There are many people both in our government and out that could give a shit if everyone has a good paying job. There are even some who would prefer there were no minimum wages. There are even people who make money when our economy takes a dive.

                      Don’t presume to speak for “the people”.

                    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

                      … those critical items can be addressed without a Democratic supermajority.  Romanoff or no Romanoff.

                      That’s actually starting to take a tangible shape.  Probably January at the start of the new session.

                      You think HCR or the Financial Reform Bill battles got the GOP riled up?  Limbaugh is going to make millions off this battle royale (and he couldn’t be more pleased).

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      I can’t believe it has taken them this long to realize it. Senators tend to live really sheltered lives and I don’t think they realize how bad many people have it.

                    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

                      This would work for when a GOP majority is in power too.

                      There is a reason why the House can pass bill after bill, while the Senate is designed to be the moderating force to limit the momentary passions of the electorate.

                      But of course 200 years ago, it would take months for news to travel back and forth from Washington to the farthest towns.

                      With today’s 24-hour news cycle, perhaps passing bills in weeks instead of months is more appropriate for these times.  Time will tell.

                    • dfarrah says:

                      and by many accounts, we are heading toward another depression.

                      I know people who don’t have jobs; I see homes in my neighborhood sitting empty.  I hear projections that foreclosures are still increasing, despite the Homebuyer act you cite.  A friend of mine just received notice that her insurance premiums are going to triple due to the wonderful health care act, another friend of mine is no longer receiving assistance while she is unemployed, companies are hoarding their cash instead of employing people….and I could go on and on.

                      Until the huge problem of unemployment is resolved, all of the legislation you cite means absolutely nothing to those in need.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      a descriptive and a normative assertion. The former is a statement about what is (e.g., “people are irrational”), and the latter is a statement about what should be (e.g., “it would be better for the purposes of this conversation if you were less irrational”).

          • MADCO says:

            is that if AR is the D candidate, he will not be the one to define the message.  He an try- but it aint’ gonna happen unless he has several more houses to sell.

            Meanwhile, the R candidate will run against Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Romanoff will be dismissed described as just another career politician who is going to line up with the librul D agenda.

    • peacemonger says:

      but I wouldn’t step foot in a campaign office after the ugliness we’ve seen.

      I also know a lot of other Bennet supporters who don’t know Andrew personally, but are completely turned off by the negative ads. They won’t be back. They were out for Obama, and by extension, Bennet, but are now so disgusted by  Romanoff’s attack ads they don’t want anything to do with politics anymore.

    • catpuzzle says:

      A month ago I would have supported Andrew. Now, I can’t, ever again.

      I’ve given to Bennet. I won’t to Andrew.

      I’ve made calls for Bennet. I won’t for Andrew.

      I’ve knocked doors for Bennet. I won’t for Andrew.

      I voted for Bennet. Let me be 100% clear about this. Character matters. I can never, in good conscience, cast a ballot for someone willing to wage this sort of despicable campaign. I will never. Ever. Vote for Andrew Romanoff. For anything. That’s a promise.

      I know a lot of other people feeling that way these days. It’s too bad Andrew might cost dems this senate seat. But it’s entirely his fault. Just disgusting. All about Andrew. Willing to say and do anything to win. I am so angry I am sick about it.  

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        A month after the primary was over she was out there working for Obama. Not quite as charged up, but close. Give it time.

      • richardmyers says:

        I’m an independent, hoping for a Romanoff win. I think David is right on with his observation that Romanoff has appeal because he is,

        A Democrat who is not an incumbent.

        I believe the electorate has an unprecedented level of anger against incumbents of whatever party. I believe there is a possibility that Romanoff is the only chance for Dems hanging on to this seat.

        I have heard promises of primary votes for Romanoff from Dems that i know. Time will tell, but i think a lot of conventional wisdom can be tossed out the window this cycle.

        Finally, if Romanoff wins the primary, isn’t that at least partly an indication that he can win against the odds?

        • harrydobyharrydoby says:

          Tell me again how that would appeal to Independents in an anti-incumbent year?

          In 2008, McCain’s biggest problem was the notion that Bush and the GOP had screwed things up so much that people looked at him and thought, “Do we really want another Republican just to finish the job?”

          Bennet rightly should run on his record.  If enough voters think there is someone who can do a better job, then he loses.  Otherwise, he’s got the best shot at holding the seat for Dems.

          • richardmyers says:

            Tell me again how that would appeal to Independents in an anti-incumbent year?

            It appeals to me, and i’ve been an independent for nearly thirty years. It also appeals to at least some of my friends, many of whom are likewise independents.

            Romanoff’s record, as i understand it, is slightly more progressive than Bennet’s. But i want someone who is considerably more progressive.

            Romanoff’s rhetoric has been more progressive than his record. Couple that with the fact that he is generally well liked, and it seems there is a good possibility that he could win.

            Therefore, Romanoff is my choice. If he can beat Bennet, then in my view he has an excellent chance to win the general.

            Not saying that’s always going to be the case. But this election cycle, it seems ever more probable.

            Will Romanoff disappoint, even if he does win? Hard to say. But i already know Bennet’s record. In my judgment, Bennet is too much of a fence sitter. Granted, he was getting a little better during the past half year (in my view, most probably as a result of the primary challenge.) But that’s too little, too late. Time to give someone else a chance.

            Another factor, i’m not fond of Ritter. Bennet is Ritter’s guy, and his politics seem very Ritter-like.

            If Ritter had remained in, and if there was a primary challenge, i would have considered becoming a Democrat just to vote for the challenger.

            I can’t vote against Ritter since he dropped out, but i can hope for someone else to replace “Ritter Junior”. Not that this connection with Ritter is a main consideration, but for me it is one factor.

            Oh, and i’d like to think that people who reacted to Ritter as i did are part of the reason that he didn’t stand for re-election. But who knows the real reason he dropped out? Not i.

          • richardmyers says:

            Romanoff’s decision not to accept PAC money really does appeal to me. That’s the one pledge that could convince me to donate.

            • harrydobyharrydoby says:

              I hadn’t really thought of the Progressive-Independent part of the political spectrum.  Honestly, because I’m not convinced it is a significant number of voters.

              The issue of Andrew’s newly-minted Populist/Progressive rhetoric vs. his real-world voting record will be endlessly exploited by the GOP should he be our candidate in the Fall.

              But the flaw here is that while you hope for a Romanoff win, your lack of Democratic party affiliation (and presumably that of your like-minded friends) do Andrew no good in the primary.

              If Andrew is our candidate, I will work to support him as much as I can.  I hope you will do the same if Bennet is the candidate.  

              The alternative of adding another voice in the Senate that wants our nation to slide back under the GOP’s misbegotten notion that we have to continue the destructive policies of the past is too terrible to imagine.  

  4. Ralphie says:

    While Senator Norton or Senator Buck cruise to an easy victory over a candidate who left it all at the starting line.

    • wade norris says:

      you are willing to give Senator ‘High Heels’ the victory so fast.

      The same attack on Bennet’s lobbyist corruption also will work just fine on Norton.

      And in the General, it will matter that Colorado has the highest level of identified Tea Party voters.

      Buck’s statements to appease them will be too extreme for moderates,

      and Norton’s work with former Speaker Romanoff to pass the “big Government” Referendum C will not be extreme enough for the Tea Party voters.

      IMHO – the race for the Senate seat is being decided in this Primary.

    • gertie97 says:

      Romanoff, if he pulls it out and wins the primary, is toast in the general. It’s wishful thinking that individual donations will total the bucks he’d need.

      It’s why I’m voting for Bennet. The thought of Norton or Buck is scary, and I don’t see Romanoff raising the money he’d need.

      Democrats who want to hold the seat will vote for Bennet. Those who prefer purity like Romanoff, and they’ll lose the seat.

      • wade norris says:

        the most recent polling shows that Bennet’s negatives are higher than any other candidate in the race.

        that does not translate into a General Win.

        • OuiserBoudreaux says:

          …is that people get muddy.  It’s true!

          For example, Romanoff slings a bunch of mud at Bennet.  Bennet gets muddy.  Romanoff people can then say, “Don’t vote for Bennet, he’s too muddy!  I mean, who knows how these things happen, but anyway he’s unfortunately all muddy.  Hence, you might as well vote for me!”

          • BlueCat says:

            And if the attack doesn’t finish the job and Bennet wins, as I believe he will, he’ll have plenty of money to erase the negatives in the general.  Romanoff will never have the kind of money Bennet will be able to command as the Dem candidate no matter how much of an about face he does about what kind of funding he’ll accept at this point.  

            Once you’ve labeled yourself the purity candidate it’s hard to go back to the way you used to do it in all of your previous elections, not to mention that a Democratic piece of toast could have won where Romanoff is used to running. But he does have experience helping other Dems win tougher races, his own PAC, etc. So he knows how it needs to be done but has promised not to do it. Tough position.

            • dfarrah says:

              are dreaming.  

              Face up to the fact that the guy simply doesn’t appeal to people.  He just doesn’t.  And that’s one of the reasons I’ve never supported him–he’s like a wet sock, and I don’t see wet socks appealing to enough of the voters in Colorado to beat a repub–unless the repub is just plain horrible.

              What makes you think he’ll suddenly develop some appeal in the general?  Do you honestly believe he’ll be able to spend away his negatives in the general?  He had high negatives even before AR started his latest “atrocity.”  And he’s been spending his money and still has high negatives–and MB supporters want us to believe he’ll just spend his way out of this hole.

              • Steve Harvey says:

                people who don’t have a specific agenda which is served by claiming that he doesn’t appeal to people find him tremendously appealing. He’s an articulate, witty, humble and sincere individual who has a fantastic talent for putting people at their ease and making each person he talks to feel like the focus of his complete attention, traits that are the ones which characterize the most successful politicians (successful not only in getting elected, but in getting things done).

                I’m not going to diss Andrew. He’s charming and affable as well, and sincerely committed to Democratic ideals, but he is simply outclassed and eclipsed by Bennet. Andrew’s greatest talent is in delivering a powerful speech to a large audience that captures their imaginations by telling them exactly what they want to hear, and in cultivating the fierce loyalty of a large circle of staunch supporters. Those are real talents that have served him well in his primary challenge, but they are not enough. Bennet is a less exciting public speaker (though a more interesting and engaging one, in my opinion), but he has, to a greater degree than Romanoff (because I’m going to assume that Romanoff has these talents to some degree as well, though I have not personally witnessed or experienced them in my few interactions with him), the ability to most effectively engage one-on-one both those who agree and those who disagree with him, and move them further in the direction of his point of view. This is the talent that is more important once elected.

                He also is better at educating his audience, which is a skill I especially appreciate.

                • dfarrah says:

                  feedback I’ve gotten from various people and my own opinion.

                  I can accept that he must be wonderful in person–however, Bennet supporters could at least acknowledge that whatever they see in him at a personal level just doesn’t transmit at a crowd or television level.

                  And if he was as charming at the big crowd or television level, don’t you think his negatives would be lower and that no one would have primaried him?  

                  Really, my first thought when he was appointed and I saw him at his appointment speech was, “how is this guy going to win anything?”  

                  • Steve Harvey says:

                    anecdotal evidence is worthless in this context (and, indeed, in most contexts). The feedback you’ve gotten from various people holds no evidentiary value, especially since you are using it to support a position that you are advocating. It’s identical to the conservative argument that our former health care system was obviously the best in the world because so many Canadians were supposedly flocking here to use it. That, too, was an argument with absolutely no evidentiary value, for exactly the same reason.

                    To the extent that polls which have consistently placed Bennet ahead of Romanoff are evidence that one is a more effective mass communicator than the other, they are evidence which supports the conclusion opposite the one you claim for it.

                    Bennet was not primaried because of his weaknesses, but rather because of Andrew’s personal ambition. Period.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      Personal ambition was one (that’s true in every primary). Weakness was clearly another because you don’t go primary someone who’s unbeatable.

                      I also think that Romanoff sees a better way to operate in the Senate. He may be right, he may be wrong, but I think he sees a way to do better there.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      the fact that Bennet was an appointee, and an unexpected one that was not hugely popular with the Democratic base, are what gave Andrew’s ambitions an opening to exploit. You are undoubtedly right to some degree that Andrew sincerely believes he has something better to bring to the senate, but my impression is that that belief is largely born of and cultivated by his ambition rather than his clearsightedness. As I’ve posted elsewhere, personal ambition is a part of the equation in all instances; the relevant question is whether it eclipses or serves the commitment to the progressive political agenda with which it has articulated itself. In this case, I think it’s clear that Andrew’s personal ambition eclipses rather than serves that political agenda.

                    • dfarrah says:

                      anecdotal evidence exists whether you like it or not.  And I don’t see why I shouldn’t hold the opinion that MB doesn’t have crowd/tv appeal until otherwise demonstrated.  Even his most staunch supporters on Pols talk about him in personal interactions and are, at best, luke warm about him regarding crowd/tv appearances.

                      It is a fact, for example, when I went to a dem dinner, I got into a discussion with a DPS teacher who expressed dislike for MB.  It is a fact that other dems at that dinner made critical comments of MB’s lack of appeal.  It is a fact that when I was walking my precinct, another teacher said he had seen MB at several DPS official meetings and did not like him at all.  It is a fact that a co-worker of mine, who can’t decide which party to support, expressed dislike for Bennet.  It is a fact that several dems, after the Denver Party Convention, were still critical of MB’s lack of appeal. It is a fact that, when I saw MB’s commercial rebuttal to AR’s ‘atrocities,’ I thought, “he still doesn’t sound any better than when I first saw him, yet people at Pols say he’s much better”–or something like that.

                      Am I to remain completely uninfluenced by this anecdotal evidence and my own perceptions–just because MB’s staunch supporters on POls insist otherwise?

                      And you’re just wrong about this assertion: “Bennet was not primaried because of his weaknesses, but rather because of Andrew’s personal ambition. Period.”

                      I thought, along with another handful of dems, that Ritter made a very risky choice. I was, along with these other dems, immediately concerned about keeping the senate seat upon seeing MB at his 1st presser. Do you really think we were the only dems who were worried?  Do you think that no other dems throughout the state had similar thoughts?  Well, apparently, enough of us did, hence the primary.

                       

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Lots of things exist, not all of them desirable or useful. Arguing generalities by recourse to anecdotal evidence is an attempt to persuade by means of irrationality. You can continue to do it, and I can continue to point out why it is an attempt to persuade by means of irrationality.

                      I’m a former DPS teacher, who knows other DPS teachers, many of whom support Bennet. I never argue that that means that DPS teachers in general support Bennet, because I know that it’s an absurd argument to make, and an absurd means of making it. But I will use it as an illustration of why your attempt to do the same on the other side is equally absurd.

                      And of course you’re welcome to your opinion. No one is claiming otherwise. But when you assert your opinions as facts, then those who disagree are invited to make cogent arguments about why they are not. That’s the way it works.

                      I used to distinguish opinion and analysis for my students in this way: Analysis is a process by which opinions can be derived, and opinions are conclusions which may or may not be based on analyses. If you want your opinions to be persuasive, to be reflective of reality rather than arbitrary beliefs that you find emotionally gratifying, then it is best to subject them as much as possible to that lathe of analysis.

                      Your opinions and assertions about Bennet are just that: Opinions and assertions. I disagree with them on many levels, and argue why. I disagree that Bennet was a poor choice; I disagree that he’s at an electoral disadvantage. I’ve specified why I think that those memes are inventions of the campaign that opposes him, rather than independent realities. And it’s no coincidence that those whose job it is to win elections agree.

                      I like reason. I like passion. I like when the go hand-in-glove. Bare-fisted irrationality in service to a passionate commitment to human welfare doesn’t fit that bill. Reason in service to a passionate commitment to human welfare does.

                • dfarrah says:

                  the charismatic person you describe sounds just like…Obama!!

                  Maybe MB is good at moving people further toward his direction; however, whatever direction he has chosen so far as a senator hasn’t served the typical dem agenda well at all.

                  Crap, I don’t want someone who can convince people that we need a complex exchange system instead of a simple single payer system.  I don’t want someone who convinces everyone to vote against cramdown.  I want someone who effectively promotes the dem agenda.  

                  It’s kind of hard for a dino to promote programs supported by more progessive dems.

                  • Steve Harvey says:

                    for trying to be reasonable and even-handed. Romanoff is no Obama, for a variety of reasons. I bend over backwards to give him credit where it is sometimes only marginally due, because I believe that we should try not to flock to polarized positions, but rather to engage in a mutually accomodating dialogue. That’s what I think works; that’s one of the things I like about Bennet; and that’s what your camp has so frequently and consistently demonstrated an unfortunate and destructive aversion to.

                    You have mischaracterized Bennet’s positions, in a blindly antagonistic lashing out. I can only hope that that attitude and that habit are not what will win the day.

              • ThillyWabbit says:

                You people have gone off the deep end.

        • Ralphie says:

          This thread wasn’t about Bennet.

          And that’s the problem with you and your campaign, Wade.

          You can’t say a damned thing positive about your candidate.  All you can say is “Bennet sucks.”

          Doesn’t work for me.  Probably won’t work for other people either.

        • peacemonger says:

          Romanoff attacks Bennet ruthlessly on television, and then blames Bennet for having lower favorability scores. (Isn’t that kind of like people blaming Barack Obama for the economy failing, or for gay marriage not being legal yet? Or, how about blaming women for being raped because they made themselves attractive? Or blaming the EPA for the BP oil disaster?) You take the metaphor of the Democrat’s circular firing squad to new levels, Wade.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      Then Buck and Norton are toast. Because it’s been a lot worse for a lot longer over on their side.

      Looking at Bennet’s negatives I think Romanoff could be in better shape than Bennet for the general, even with less money. Money matters, but it isn’t everything.

  5. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    I just watched the Bennet/Romanoff debate on Schrager’s Show. Both were very polite and agreeable. Many compliments by each to the other. No direct comparisons. No cheap shots. Not even any deserved shots.

    Now the front runner will take that approach because rule #1 is don’t make any mistakes. But the one behind in the polls will attack in a show like this as that’s their only route to victory.

    So why were both acting like the front runner?

  6. Interlocken Loop says:

    Money will not be a problem for whomever the Democratic nominee is.  

    • ThillyWabbit says:

      But the one in Wisconsin who is a Senator takes plenty of PAC money.

      http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-b

      • Raf says:

        about the magic ponies, unicorns of righteousness, and the progressive carebear hordes that lift Feingold to victory on the regular, and will do the same for Romanoff.

        Or, as my friend TBogg put it:

        Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes.

        They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar.

        You don’t live there. Grow the fuck up.

        carebears

      • Interlocken Loop says:

        In the past Feingold refused PAC money and nearly got whooped. I stand correct Mr/Ms Wabbit

    • Ah Choo says:

      And, incidentally, has endorsed Michael Bennet.  

      Try again.  

  7. Ellie says:

    I don’t think either Senate primary campaign has cloaked itself in glory.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        How did the Salazar campaign, which was highly competitive against Coors, disgrace itself? And aside from declining to sit for an interview with you, the Udall campaign went into the mud exactly how?

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          And we bloggers threw just about everything and anything against Schaffer to help Udall. But Udall was self-destructing and so the smart thing for Udall to do was to leave him alone, which he did.

          Salazar/Coors I didn’t follow closely so I can’t speak to that. If that one stayed out of the gutter then kudos to both of them.

    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

      I think Bennet has spent the least on negative ads.  He obviously held back until the last possible moment (but had them at the ready since it was an easily anticipated turn in the Romanoff campaign).  

      Given the guarantee that the general will be extremely nasty coming from the GOP and 527s, I wonder if a calmer discussion of risks and rewards might appeal to independents and disaffected Republicans (not to mention Dems) tired of the mudslinging by changing the overall tone?  

      It would also suit Bennet’s personal style better, and put him more in sync with Hickenlooper’s campaign (which would be a very good thing).

      The Limbaugh/Beck crowd wouldn’t be interested, because outrage is their opiate of choice.

      • Ralphie says:

        It proves you’re conspiring against Romanoff.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        the Buck campaign has hardly spent anything on negative ads. He’s had the benefit of a third party doing it for him, but that’ll be true for both candidates after the primary.  

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        But I think this is great practice for whoever wins the primary. Back when Romanoff first declared I supported Bennet but also said I was glad Romanoff was in – to give Bennet some practice. I still think that holds.

        • OuiserBoudreaux says:

          That is why you are in the diminishing minority about this.  A shocking correlation, I know.

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          This is not to say that I think Bennet hasn’t been doing a great job. I have been a vocal supporter of Bennet on ColPols and he got my vote in this primary.

          However, Bennet was appointed to the Senate. He was not elected by the voted of Colorado. It is for this reason alone that he needed to go through this primary process. I am glad that it is Andrew that is challenging Bennet as this will most likely be Bennet’s toughest primary ever. If he can beat Andrew and go on to the general and be elected (re-gaining the seat) he will have accomplished many things.

          By having Romanoff primary Bennet the Democrats who felt that Bennet didn’t deserve the appointment will be silenced when Michael wins. By Romanoff running in the primary it challenges Andrew as much as Michael and Democrats get a good look at how both men run a campaign.

          While the primary has taxed Bennet’s warchest which some think could have been better spent taking down the GOP, in the long run, it is in Bennet’s best interest to win the primary first.

          • dfarrah says:

            it certainly won’t ‘silence’ anyone’s feelings [since you said 'felt'] that MB was undeserving.  

            I mean, with all the support and money he has, why wouldn’t he win?

            I don’t believe MB ‘deserved’ anything that  has been handed to him over his life.  He’s just your typical well-connected white guy who gets things handed to him throughout his life, just like other well-connected people.

            • EmeraldKnight76 says:

              A completely personal attack on Michael Bennet shows everyone that the Democratic Party has our fair share of nut jobs.

              Now that I’ve gotten over my shock that you don’t believe Bennet deserved anything that’s been “handed” to him, let’s examine that:

              Do you believe that Romanoff deserved anything that would have been just handed to him? It’s was an appointed position. No matter who Ritter chose they wouldn’t have earned it. By definition it would have been handed to them.

              Or is Romanoff’s whiteness somehow different that Bennet’s? It must be for you to have brought it up. I would love to hear your explanation on how Bennet’s whiteness is somehow a factor in this Senate campaign.

              Maybe it’s Bennet’s well connectedness? Romanoff was the Speaker of the State House. Was he so bad a Speaker he has no Colorado connections? He seems to have done pretty well for himself at the caucuses and conventions. Or maybe Bennet’s connections are somehow more “well” than Romanoff’s?

              Your ridiculous ramblings make no sense in the context of this primary race. You seem about as sincere as the man you’ve chosen to defend so poorly.

  8. Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

    Republicans win the seat and Romanoff leaves Colorado.

  9. TheDeminator says:

    I am breaking my rule of caring about this race because Bennet is going to win but I am going to jump in here.

    Andrew cannot raise the money he will need to win the seat, he has not build a big enough base and the national groups will put the money they will use to protect the seat into other races and write it off.  

    I am a fundraiser for a living and unless Andrew has 4 – 8 more houses to sell it’s over. I’ve already heard from national progressive groups I work with they it’s Bennet or they will look elsewhere.

    - Andy Szekeres – http://www.3pgnow.com

    • StrykerK2 says:

      I mean you worked for what like 24 federal candidates according to your profile?  I mean that means you must get fired every 3 months or something.

      • TheDeminator says:

        Come talk to me when you have a real job in politics bud. You created your SN to trash Bennet and nothing more which I guess is fine for being a sockpuppet and all.  

        I am fine with posting my name on here unlike you and will proudly stand by my reputation raising money for Dems and Progressive issues across the country.  

        • StrykerK2 says:

          how did that work out for you?  You’re not a fundraiser.  You’re a hack who says he’s a fundraiser.

          You want to use your credentials as proof of your argument?  You need some first.

          • Ralphie says:

            Because I’d be happy to see your sorry ass banned.

            I don’t see his name on his signature.  

          • TheDeminator says:

            You have a bone to pick with me, and that’s fine because I will quickly point out some easy facts.

            In 2006 – I served as Fawcett’s Finance Director and he raised $676,370 prove to me where a Democrat has raised more in that seat?

            In 2008 I worked on the Polis team in Finance – Where we raised – $1,310,022 from individuals.

            In 09 I was the Finance director for No on 1 – Protect Maine Equality we raised – $5,098,366 from 16942 donor. Which was the most of any ballot measure ever in the state of Maine… Compared to $2,681,083 for the Anti gay Marriage ballot measure who raised that from 949 donors.

            I teach fundraising across the country for Democracy for America at their Campaign Academies and was named to the 2010 Democratic Campaign Dream Team by fellow fundraisers and political staff.

            So there is my cred in fundraising, I’ve raised over 30 Million dollars including a 5 million dollar gift last week for C3, C4 and Candidates since 06. I think I can claim I am more than just a hack but you can claim I am just a hack.   Yet again you are not posting your name and I would bet have never worked on a campaign which is fine.  

      • StrykerK2 says:

        since you put your name on your signature…you’re reputation is a joke.  The reason you don’t like Andrew is because his campaign wouldn’t hire you…because they know you’re a joke.

        Shouldn’t you go back to not raising money in CD5 or something like normal?

        • Raf says:

          Given that you’re hiding behind your pseudonym, even as you tried to out other folks.

          I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: you don’t have the damn guts to say to Andy’s face – or mine, for that matter – what you so easily write here.

          Either put up, and quit posting anonymously, or STFU.

          • StrykerK2 says:

            This site has said over and over again why they value anonymity.  If you choose to post your name, that’s cool.  If you have credibility it lends that to your arguments.  If you don’t, don’t expect people not to make an issue out of who you are when you say you’re right.

            • Raf says:

              But if you’re going to go down that road, then you’re fair game as well. Drop the mask, and tell us who you are.

              Otherwise, you’re just a spineless, gutless coward. And I’d have no problem telling it to your face. You know how to find me.

              • StrykerK2 says:

                I watch you sleep…

                • TheDeminator says:

                  That’s just weird… Shame you have so little of a life you watch people sleep.  :-D

                    • Raf says:

                      A) That’s just creepy. I mean, downright, stalker-style creepy.

                      B) So what’s stopping you?

                      OK, I lied, 3 things:

                      C) I’m officially creeped out. And considering I went to war, that’s saying something. But, hey, whatever.

                    • peacemonger says:

                      Don’t you have some pull with Andrew? I am worried for Andrew’s sake that Stryker has gone off the deep end.

                    • Raf says:

                      I doubt that he’d listen to me.

                      As for “Stryker”, without knowing who the person is, I can’t hardly tell them to knock it off more bluntly than I have. Regardless, random internet commentators are the least of his problems.

                      I’ve said all along that both sides would go negative in the waning days of the primary. The question is whether Romanoff’s attack ads end up tarring Bennet the same way that Gene Nichol’s “lawyer-lobbyist” attack ended up tarring Tom Strickland in 1996. In that sense, Nichol bears some responsibility for Wayne Allard being Senator.

                      That’s the concern going down the stretch. I’m sure that Romanoff partisans would retort, “Well, that’s why the Governor should’ve appointed Romanoff in the first place!” To which I’d respond (and have) that it’s not the duty of the Democratic Party to make sure that Romanoff (or anyone else, for that matter) has a cool gig.

                      The Governor appointed Bennet for his own reasons. Romanoff then decided to run for Senate, which he’s perfectly entitled to do.

                      What he’s failed to do, thus far, is provide an affirmative reason for why he’d be different than Bennet. He’s already admitted that he would have voted the same way on health care, financial reform, immigration, &c, &c.

                      That’s why this primary has left me just gobsmacked. If you’re a challenger, you have to provide people with a reason to fire the incumbent and hire you instead. Given that there would be no qualitative difference between him and Bennet, based on record, I fail to see why people are so passionate about the guy.

                      I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: He’s not who you think he is. And if he’s, by some miracle, elected, he’ll quickly turn into the same cautious moderate he was in the Legislature, which is who he really is.

                      A sidebar: For Andrew to say that the DNC didn’t “stick its thumb on the scale” is either breathtakingly naive or he’s being disingenuous. I worked for Lee Fisher in ’98 when he ran for Governor of Ohio (he’s now running for U.S. Senate) and the DNC did show its favoritism for Lee, in ways big and small, to the point that Lee’s opponent, Bruce Douglas, withdrew. There are other examples, of course, but for Andrew to claim it didn’t happen is simply false.

                      Anyway, back to the subject. Let’s say he’s elected. When he’s tacking madly to make sure that he’s in Dick Durbin’s or Chuck Schumer’s good graces – because, again, Romanoff’s a team player, always has been, always will be – his supporters will have two choices:

                      1. Claim that he’s engaging in some epic games of eleven-dimensional chess, in order to bring about the progressive eschaton; or

                      2. Claim that he’s sold out La Causa, and proceed to look for the next white knight.

                      Some will choose 1, some will choose 2. Either way, those of us in the reality-based community are just going to nod our heads.

                      TBH, I don’t hate Andrew. I like the guy. If he wins, I’ll vote for him in November. And I think he’d make a pretty awesome Senator! But this whole idea that Andrew’s the second coming of Paul Wellstone is just simply fantastical. He’s the political equivalent of Splenda: sweet, tasty, and no substitute for cane sugar.

              • wade norris says:

                you can ask Laughing Boy, redstatesblues, MADCO,Ali Hasan, David Sirota, and  MOTR about purity related to anonymity.

                You either post under your name and are who you are or you don’t.

                I have done as you have and asked people to ‘Drop the mask, and tell us who you are.’ many times, but that is not the rules of this site.

                Frustrating as it is, you’ll have to live with the anonymity.

                (let’s start a new site where you have to use your real name – my name is Wade Norris – What’s yours?)

                • Raf says:

                  Here’s the thing. SK2 has gone out of her (I dimly recall the poster tacitly admitting she was a woman back when) to attack me personally (both here and over at Square State) and did it again to TD tonight, in this thread.

                  As personal attacks go, these are mild. However, there’s a difference between “nana boo boo, you’re an idiot! I know you are, but what am I?” and going after someone’s professional background. I can’t speak for TD, but when it happened to me, frankly, I felt assaulted. What made it worse was that I have no idea who SK2 is. For all I know, it could be someone I know very well. Clearly, they know who I am.

                  I don’t have a problem with anonymity. I’ve used pseudonyms in the past, and will again in the future, depending on what my role is. Hell, I don’t even have a problem with personal attacks – as long as you’re doing it to my face.

                  And that’s without going into the whole weird, and frankly, creeptastic way where she was all, “I do know where to find you…I watch you sleep”.

                  I mean…seriously? Really?

                  This isn’t the first time, and I don’t think it’s going to be the last. She’s been warned for her actions on numerous occasions.

                  Anonymity has its uses. But in SK2′s case, she’s clearly abusing it in order to lash out and attack people whenever she’s cornered. She’s acting in a way that she clearly wouldn’t if people knew who she was. In my opinion, she’s not deserving of anonymity. That’s why I called her out. And in the future, I’ll just ignore her.

                  I mean, what else am I supposed to do?

                  • StrykerK2 says:

                    your “you know where to find me” comment was entertaining, hence the “I watch you sleep response.”

                    To be serious for a second, I don’t watch you sleep.  You’re a little short for me ;)

                • parsingreality says:

                  NOT.

                  Frankly, I am SO tired of your personal attacks that have nothing to do with who the better candidate is.  Which is pretty typical behavior of those who can’t make real arguments why they are correct.

                  The real world identity of Rat isn’t important.

                  Why don’t you hold Stryker to the same standard?

                  I’m going to guess that come August 11th the two of you will join the long list of CoPols foaming at the mouth “contributors” that fade away after the election in question.

                  It can’t happen fast enough.  

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        A-it’s possible to work for more than one candidate at a time

        B-It probably never occurred to you, being a shill and all, but most campaigns have a beginning and an end.  Working for a caqndidate after the primary (and usually, there is no primary) and ending after the election works out to about 3 months.

          Of course, in your case, win or lose, it’s back to the car wash in November.  Not much place for shills on the senatorial payroll.  

  10. glasscup says:

    They will NOT be Andrew’s great white hope. He was not their candidate. He will get the kind of support Elaine Marshall is getting. They will not support him in a significant way, and they certainly won’t waste IE TV ad money on him.

    Why? Because he has shown NO capacity whatsoever to raise the money it takes to win this race. The DSCC does NOT carry campaigns. It gives them the resources they need to get over the top. Andrew needs someone to carry him.

    Additionally, I work tangentially with one of the progressive groups Andy referenced above. People I work with there have said they are planning on making a significant investment for Bennet in the general. If Romanoff pulls this off, they won’t waste their money. There are too many races, and this won’t be worth the effort.

    He’s going to be broke. He’s going to be under attack. And he’s going to lose.

    I think it’s possible for him to win this primary with the sort of disgusting negative ads he’s running, because they work. But he’ll have lost my support and the support of many others, and he won’t have the resources it takes to win this.  

  11. TheDeminator says:

    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…  - Before the 2 p.m. news conference, numerous Bennet supporters were chanting, “no more lies,” when a larger crowed of about 100 Romanoff supporters drowned them out chanting, “Better off with Romanoff.”

    This is great news 100 less people talking to voters and making asses out of themselves.  Oh boy… how I love how pathetic and desperate the folks over at Team Romanoff are getting.  

    • silverandblue says:

      No more lies.

       Negative message.

      Better off with Romanoff.

       Positive message.

      What is Team Bennet spending all that money on if they can’t get this basic point straight?

      Positive message beats negative everytime.

      Especially pathetic is the no more lies line.  The chant of losers from the beginning of politics.

      Team Bennet how about:

      Bank it with Bennet

      Vote for Bennet, the guy who brought you $9 popcorn.

      Better with Banker Bennet

      Hey Bennet, wear a tie next time you are on TV.  

      • Cartesian Doubt says:

        How did he do that?

        “The chant of losers?” You disrespectful twit.

        And “wear a tie next time you’re on TV?” That’s the best you can come up with?

      • Rainidog says:

        Yeah, right.  I was surrounded by those signs at a St. Patrick’s day parade back in March.

        Bennet supporters simply waved signs with Bennet’s name.

        I heard people booing Bennet at State Assembly, and holding extra large Romanoff signs up in the front of the camera aimed at the stage when it was Bennet’s turn. When Romanoff was on stage, nothing but polite applause from Bennet people.

        Just a couple examples of the really nice oh-so positive messages from the AR campaign.  And you really thought Bennet was going to lie down and take the smears and insults right up to the end?

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        to invade the other candidates rally and heckle him and his supporters.  Boy, is that positive!

  12. morebetter says:

    is that Democrats in my county will invest time and treasure in the winner of this primary. My children are working hard and my grandchildren eat every day. I don’t have an option but to make something happen.

    The sad part is… that’s all Andrew has going for him now. Thanks for nothing, Speaker.

    • catpuzzle says:

      Elaine Marshall 2.0.

      There are more important races for them. Incumbents raise money into the DSCC. They money they raised will be spent on those folks first. They won’t waste money that could be spent defending Blanche on Andrew, even if he does have a better chance of winning. She’s the one that raised the money, not Andrew. Why do people pretend like there will be magical money for him? He is going to be completely broke if he pulls this off. Broke, and with a ton of people hating him for the shit he pulled.  

  13. Littletonian says:

    who thinks that the GOP nominee cruises to victory here, regardless of whom we select?

    This site occasionally returns to the theme of Colorado’s sizable population of ticket-splitting independents. With both parties’ images as low as they are, I expect that most registered U’s see the two top races as eminently splittable.

    Do you think anyone with character considerations is going to vote for McInnis, Maes or Tancredo? I don’t.

    Hickenlooper will win in a landslide, and very few outside the party love Bennet or have heard of Romanoff. I think the Democratic nominee, whoever he is, has the most image problems from day one after the primaries.

    • denverco says:

      and how nasty their primary has been, I think the Democrats have an excellent chance of retaining this seat. Providing Bennet is the candidate for the Dems.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        If Romanoff can gain 20 points with 3 weeks of minimal TV, imagine what Buck will be able to do with 2 months of well funded hammering.

        I have to admit I’m very surprised. I figured Bennet would win by 5 – 10 points and never have to worry much in the primary. Instead he’s been put on the ropes.

        There’s no way the team Bennet we see today can win in November.

        • MADCO says:

          Bennet has the better chance.

          Everything Romanoff has smeared Bennet with hurts Bennet and helps AR in the primary.  None of it matters in the general.

          Selling his house was like HIllary crying in NH.  Both were sincere, buth were media stunts too. Good ones.  Unless selling his car and dog can help, he can’t do it again.

          After 8.10, Andrew begins to get labeled for what he is – a long time active D and elected official- and just another experienced supporter of Obama Reid & Pelosi.  

          He managed to run to the left int he primary and that would kill him in the general if he gets there.  We’re debating repealing healthcare and he wants single payer.  We’re debating expiration of the Bush tax cuts and he wants cap and trade.

          Bennet is the only D who could win.

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        the gop is in meltdown in the gov’s rce and that will hurt on the senate side by reducing gotv and other statewide efforts.

  14. Pam Bennett says:

    Wow, I take a day off to attend the National Stonewall Dems convention and all hell breaks loose.

    When Romanoff wins the primary I expect what happens will happen after every primary, the big girls pull their panties up and say “We need to win, let’s go for it.”  And, there will be sulkers going off to the picnic table by the swamp and stomp their feet and say “the world is not fair, I don’t want to play anymore.”, and they won’t.

    And to bring one more perspective up that I think is important to me and others, if Obama and the DNC do not want Romanoff to win that is one more tick on the chart of good for Romanoff.

    But, even if Bennet (one “T”, I still have to tell people he is not my older brother, like yesterday) wins, I will support him because he is a Dem and he is our Dem.

    • Steve Harvey says:

      if Obama and the DNC do not want Romanoff to win that is one more tick on the chart of good for Romanoff

      Why? To prove all of the cliches about our lack of party discipline, of being cats who can’t be herded, of not being “any organized political party”?

      The Party isn’t always right, but it is organized for a purpose, and one which I support. The future, like the past, belongs to the party that is most disciplined and most cohesive, not the one most full of those who take pride in contributing to the centrifugal forces which challenge its efficacy.

      • wade norris says:

        Obama has taken unprecedented steps to protect incumbents, Specter who lost, Lincoln, who barely won but not for a late push by Bill Clinton, (and will lose the general), and Bennet.

        The anti-Washington incumbent backlash is palpable in both parties – all things that are not good for Bennet.

        And the establishment is breaking for Romanoff -with Clinton’s endorsement pealing more votes away from the undecideds.

        The party unity was always strained at best, and only a Bush and 2 wars could unite Dems.

        but those wars are still going on – and Dems want more ‘Change’ than they have been given so far.

        • Steve Harvey says:

          are as aware of that history as you and I are. Their calculations are as informed by it as ours are. And they still support Bennet.

          That’s not why I support Bennet, but it certainly weighs in in his favor rather than his disfavor, if out goal is to advance the Democratic agenda.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              you disagree with the entire institutional Democratic Party, from Obama on down, including our State Party Chair, our Governor, our state Speaker of the House, and numerous others. I don’t. You may be right, but your insistence that there is no other possibility, and that Arlen Specter is irrefutable proof of that, is really very tiring.

              I have work to do. Enjoy your absolute certainties. I’ll leave you to them.

              • wade norris says:

                was endorsing the inevitable Hillary Clinton for President also.

                CW is not always the best bet.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  In fact, I don’t tend to think in absolutes. But the fact that our Party leaders have been wrong several times lately doesn’t mean that they are perpetually more likely to be wrong than right. If that were the case, it would be time to scrap the party altogether. And since that would not serve the progressive agenda (in my opinion), we must still see some value in this organization.

                  Humility, Wade. Humility. Start with the knowledge that you don’t know, and build upward from there.

                • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                  Oh you of the make 20 predictions and get one right, then brag about it, fame!

              • wade norris says:

                was endorsing the inevitable Hillary Clinton for President also.

                CW is not always the best bet.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  and then seem to mean “never.” Look at the statement that I block-quoted and commented on:

                  if Obama and the DNC do not want Romanoff to win that is one more tick on the chart of good for Romanoff

                  To accept this, you have to argue either that the institutional position of the Democratic Party is wrong more often than it is right, or that the institutional position of the Democratic Party is evil more often than it is good, in either of which cases you really should just leave the party rather than complain about it.

                  If, like me, you believe that it is right more often than it is wrong, and represents the good more often than it represents the bad, then the statement in block quotes is absurd, as I think it is.

  15. kingbaby says:

    Oh come on guys!  Romo will still have a few weeks to whore himself out to a billionaire and make millions off the backs of little guys.  You know, like a true progressive does.

    FDR would be so proud of the current Democratic Party.

  16. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    Can’t spend my time on it. So today I’ll stay a lurking procrastibator unlike you other procrastibators that aren’t lurking.

  17. peacemonger says:

    You are wrong. I happen to know what happened on that campaign and Andy left with his skills and pride intact. His skill set did not match the job at that particular time in the campaign. Put your name on here, coward, and I will happily have John Flerlage personally give you a call.

    Andy came with a great reference from Polis, too. After that, Andy led a strong fight for gay marriage in Maine and has allies and colleagues who will stand up for him all over the country.

    You’ve caused enough hatred and animosity in Denver — why don’t you move?

  18. Gray in Mountains says:

    both had very good campaigns. CD5 is simply, disappointingly since I live in CD5, overwhelmingly GOP. More GOP in just El Paso County than all Dems in CD5. Appears that since the GOP is more interested in holding the seat than having a candidate who works for CD5 interests we are stuck with Lamborn until he decides the $ in lobbying is pretty much guaranteed.

  19. StrykerK2 says:

    who is this mongerer of everything but peace?

  20. peacemonger says:

    He completely agrees with what I just said.

    StrykerK2, you are burning bridges for Andrew everywhere you go and everytime you post. Why?  

  21. peacemonger says:

    or ruining their career helps Andrew Romanoff, do you?

  22. StrykerK2 says:

    I’m here because you all entertain me so much.

  23. StrykerK2 says:

    HINT: that’s what campaigns say.  Firing your finance director for being grossly incompetent and picking fights with everyone sounds bad.

  24. MADCO says:

    We’ve agreed he’s not helping AR.

    Who else benefits by his instigation?

    The R nominee, of course.

  25. peacemonger says:

    You weren’t even there until much later, Stryker, and you know it.

    I admit, Andy and I didn’t get along then. but I know he has a good reputation from other jobs. He is a finance guy and a strategy guy, and damned good at it. His skill set was not the PR and marketing and administrative stuff. When the campaign team realized the wrong people were doing the wrong jobs, Andy and John had a conversation. Andy found great work in Denver doing something he was better at.  

    Stryker — your venom is not helping Andrew. Really — for Andrew Romanoff’s chances of ever having respect in this state again, you really need to stop.

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.