CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 11, 2009 08:50 AM UTC
53 Comments
Romanoff got punked. It was a bad choice, but let’s not compound bad choices here.
do we have any takers to answer that one?
(hint-hint)
Romanoff as a Senator, or a Dem in the Governor’s mansion? That might be the price of a bitter primary.
Let’s think about it rationally, and not get caught up in emotional appeals for why two ideologically similar people should fight openly before what will be a bitter general election campaign.
Or at least wait until Romanoff decides to run. It may seem harmless to call for Romanoff to run, but it’s in everyone’s best interest to keep that seat Democratic. Every accusation on Bennet from his own party just gives more fuel to the GOP.
while i agree with you on points made,
i can’t sit by as our dem volunteers and activists twiddle their thumbs and wonder if our leadership, in some way,has excluded our voices from the elective process, much in the same way that we have seen the GOP exclude our voices and votes,
when we have a trusted representative who is less vulnerable in a general election.
And, maybe Mr. Romanoff needs to hear from the voices across the State of Colorado, who actually are supportive, rather than the political insiders who say
“when he declares, we will decide”
Jefferson …
what in the world do you mean by that? Is this pure melodrama?
i believe he is the one who pointed out the “melodrama” that you speak of.
…why does Russ care so much?
You had as much opportunity to comment before the appointment as anyone. Your voice was requested.
You lost. Sour grapes. Sorry.
dem voices that is,
were calling on Governor Ritter to Appoint Michael Bennett?
that is the real BS.
The CW in every publication was saying
Romanoff, Hickenlooper, Perlmutter, and a few others.
Bennett was a complete surprise.
And no one’s comments were listened to by the governor as evidenced by the pick itself.
…because Bennett was picked, that proves that “no one’s” comments were “listened to”? That’s amazingly tortured “logic”
name one source or group of people who were recommending Michael Bennet to be the GUVs choice.
The Governor will have to fight his own battle. I believe the Governor will win reelection under any circumstances.
Have faith n the Governor.
It’s clear. Romanofff is the people’s choice
Wade, best thing you’ve ever typed here. A long, expensive, bitter primary is the way to go.
Let me know where to donate!
I’ve noticed that you seem to be encouraging “long, expensive, bitter” primaries between Democrats. It makes me think you think this is some grand strategy of helping Republican candidates win in the long run. Kinda like the long, expensive, bitter primary between Hillary Clinton and Obama that helped John McCain?
I hope Romanoff does consider challenging Bennett, and not because Bennett may not be a good Senator, but because primaries are a good idea in general to keep the parties honest. I would be inclined to support Romanoff but totally willing to give Bennet a chance to perform. I think like most people, I knew nothing about him prior to him being named.
You think?
Of course LB is, and that’s his job.
If everyone’s so pissed off at Ritter for not anointing Romanoff, why aren’t you all encouraging the lad to challenge Ritter?
I’m just saying that the conventional wisdom seems to be that long, bitter, and expensive primaries only weaken a candidate in a general election match up. I don’t think there is a lot of evidence to say that is the case and in fact I think a long contentious primary can strengthen the winning candidate for the general. Hillary Clinton taking Obama to the wire might have been the best thing that could have happened to his campaign.
That being said, I think Ritter appointing Romanoff would have been a better choice politically but that’s not the choice he made, and I’m fine with that. I still think Governor’s appointing Senators is crap and agree with the Russ Feingold that the Constitution should be amended to fix that, but it’s totally possible that Michael Bennet will be a great Senator. I don’t know. I’m willing to give him a chance.
If Beauprez hadn’t had to fuck around with Holzman, he’d be governor. Laugh if you will, but I think it’s true.
Now, I will openly agree that it’s the worst campaign I’ve ever seen run. Horrible. Sheesh.
Primaries can be good or bad so there is no hard and fast rule about them. They created bitter divisions in CD-5 and hardly any in CD-6.
As for the referenece to Bob Beauprez, the argument could have been made that his Democratic opponent would have done the same amount of damage as Holtzman did and that Ritter benefited from not having to do it himself. My gut says that Bob Beauprez would have still ran a horrible campaign for Governor and that Ritter still would have won.
Beauprez never had a good message and the one he projected made no sense from a practical point of view. He moved so far to the right during the primary and locked himself into policy positions that turned out to be silly. Mr. Beauprez was his own worst enemy in 2006.
The disarray the Dem side was in (not compared to Bob’s hapless campaign) with the Mayor deciding whether or not to get in. Without giving the Dems “both ways Bob” and stretching the primaries out, perhaps the campaign would have avoided tripping itself up over and over and over and over and over again.
I think at one point BB was up pretty high in the polls, was he not?
It was something of a tossup from Jan to July…neither was up or down by much. But from August to the election Ritter was substantially ahead. Aside from the goofy Zogby numbers…
Beauprez’s problem was trying to define himself as a conservative when he was running against a moderate (perceived or real) in Ritter. Without a primary, he could have run towards the middle and that would have made for a closer election.
I think that the Dems would have eventually pegged BB the way that he was. I believe that the Dem research would have pulled up the contradicting statements that Bob made.
But don’t forget that a lot of the blunders were made after the primary. His comment about the abortion rate among African Americans and his Lt. Gov.s candidate comment about beastiality, or accessing databases illegally were made after the primary and had nothing to do with Holtzman.
I was a Bob Beauprez supporter-I caucused for him and waited like six hours to vote for him at the state convention. Looking back, I think he would have struggled with or without a primary.
As for your other questions, BB had a slim lead in some of the first polls but that eroded quickly.
Both Way Bob’s problem was that he was OBSESSED with preventing a real primary with Holtzman. Once he finally cleared the deck Bob had no direction for the rest of the campaign.
If he had just run a primary campaign he could have honed his operation, his message and his focus. But Both Ways didn’t do that and once Holtzman was out of the way the wheels completely came off.
His own campaign people have said this.
Where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had tons of commercials and debates, and went into North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, and Virginia? And then John McCain won all those states?
Seriously, the PUMAs never existed. Does anyone really believe that there are serious Democrats who would get involved in a primary battle between Romanoff and Bennet, then vote for some crazy-ass Republican if their guy lost?
This isn’t Maine; our Republicans are insane.
I’d be happy to see a primary. The biggest problem with helping out on Mark Udall’s campaign is that nobody knew who the hell he was, because people normally don’t pay attention to Senate races until very late. A primary gets Democrats in the news, and actually ends up helping us in the end.
Looks like the Democrats are doing their best thing: forming up in a circular firing squad.
What’s the matter? The party has both U.S. Senate seats, five of the state’s seven congressional seats, the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature.
And you want to jeopardize that with a primary that will turn nasty and rip the party apart?
Death wish? Or can’t handle success? Which is it?
Looks like the Democrats are doing their best thing: forming up in a circular firing squad.
What’s the matter? The party has a majority in the House and the Senate and controls the majority of Governorships.
And you want to jeopardize that with a Presidential primary that will turn nasty and rip the party apart?
Death wish? Or can’t handle success? Which is it?
(How did that work out for ya?)
A year ago the presidential race was very much open…and for an open seat.
In Colorado today, we have a sitting Democratic senator, no matter what you think of Bennet or how he was picked.
If a job is open, the more candidates the better. But if there’s an incumbent with the job, you’d better have good reason to challenge him.
Let’s see what Bennet is and then decide.
Romanoff is smart enough to do that, just wait and see.
By the way, can anyone name the last time an incumbent senator, governor or member of Congress in Colorado was challenged in a primary? — before Dealin’ Doug, of course.
I remember pretty clearly that Clinton was considered the far-and-away frontrunner, and a lot of the discussion was whether Obama was ruining her chances (and Democratic chances in general) by mucking it up.
The 2008 primary was actually substantially LESS open throughout 2007 than the 2004 primary was in 2003.
God that sentence looks terrible, but I can’t seem to fix it.
Obviously, the primary changed things up. I just don’t think there’s a comparison between the two situations.
Had it not been for the governor’s eccentric appointment, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. He could have appointed any of four or five experienced pols-e.g.,Perlmutter, Buescher, Cary Kennedy, Tom Strickland)-but he decided to substitute his individual judgment and pick a guy who had never held elective office. That may play into the anti-pol, anti-government prejudices of some, but politicians, like practitioners in any profession/skill/craft,need to serve ann apprenticeship. Romanoff is, simply put, a master of his craft-as good in his way as Obama is in his. We need a senator who knows the state, knows the game, and knows how to make deals that benefit the state. We’ll see-but so far I’m not impressed with Bennet. So far, he’s pretending to be a statesman-not realizing, that when the federal cornucopia opens to the tune of $800 billion you’d better be at the trough muscling aside the other oinkers. Let’s face it: we need an alpha oinker-maybe Ted Stevens would consider moving here!
I am wondering what part of taking over an urban school district, improving test scores, and increasing enrollment is NOT public service? How about serving as Hick’s CoS?
There are different ways to serve the public. Some run for public office, others take jobs that help their communities be a better place to live.
Not saying one is better than the other, and you can knock the appointment process all you want, but you can’t fault Bennet for not being a public servant. There are few jobs more thankless than running DPS.
No denying that Bennet’s done well in the jobs that he’s held-but he’s not a politician. Being a pol means learning at the city council/county commissioner/state legislature level. It means learning political skills. It means dealing with constituents-thousands of ’em, instead of a board or a boss. Good pols, like Romanoff, who are smart, likeable, in no one’s pocket, and know how to lead inherently fractious groups like the state legislature, are rare and wonderful commodities. We’ve had a few-Hank Brown comes to mind, as do Tim Wirth and Wayne Aspinall. Bennet’s a smart guy-but he’s an accidental tourist, a product of Ritter’s overweening ego. Andrew’s the man.
Heading up a large urban school district requires a consumate politician. You wouldn’t last a week on that job if you didn’t have “political skills.” Maybe you mean to argue for legislative skills?
You praise Romanoff for handling an “inherently fractious group like the state legsilature.” The DPS board and the various advocacy groups are arguably more contentious and fractious than the state house.
Also, as DPS head his constituency group was certainly not just limited to the school board. He oversaw 13,000 employees and 73,000 students. That was his constituency and its a larger constituency than any state legislator can lay claim to.
I like the lively debate on the topic and I personally like the Speaker quite a bit but lets not disparage a guy who choose to take on such a thankless job as heading up an urban school district. To simply dismiss him as a “accidental tourist” is pretty insulting.
I would love to see Andrew Romanoff in the Senate, and would support him even if it means losing Ritter as governor.
I think Ritter has been a disaster. He has been exceptionally ineffective as governor, and has made inexplicable decisions that have weakened us as a state. Examples:
1. The executive order allowing state employees to have collective-bargaining-lite. The employees gained nothing that they didn’t have already; it was just a bone thrown to the state employee organizations. In return, Ritter has gotten tremendous flack and the effect of the EO has been (misrepresented) pitched to the business community (whatever that is) as a huge win for the unions.
Now, I wouldn’t particularly mind if the unions had gotten a big win (though I cannot fathom why state employees with the kind of civil service protections Colorado gives need unions). However, Ritter got tagged as being a big pro-labor, anti-business governor, and in return the unions got … a bone. Bad trade-off.
2. After convening a blue-ribbon commission (or was it a task force?) to do an in-depth review of health care, and having the recommended fixes working through the legislature, Ritter abruptly pulled the plug on health care reform last year, saying “let’s wait and see what the feds do.” That’s worked out well, hasn’t it?
3. Ritter’s campaign for Amendment 58 was an utter failure.
4. And finally, Ritter had two opportunities to appoint well-qualified people with long careers in public service to SOS and US Senate. He seemed unable to make those appointments, and set up gimmicky selection processes that included having an on-line vote by the citizens. In both cases, he wound up appointing somebody who was less qualified than other applicants (Buescher v. Rodriguez, e.g.) or was such a bizarre choice that people are still flummoxed by it.
What value has Ritter added to this state? What are his governing principles? How does he make his decisions? What on earth guides him?
I get the sense that the man is flailing in the office, and the suggestion that Andrew Romanoff should refrain from primarying Bennet because that might weaken Ritter baffles me.
Without mentioning the fact that Romanoff’s A-59 campaign was equally horrible.
Plus, a Republican Governor would almost assuredly gerrymander the congressional districts in the GOP’s favor.
This isn’t about whether you think Ritter has been the most effective governor, or, hell, effective at all. This is about keeping the balance of power form tipping back towards the Republicans.
I’m not saying a Senate primary means guaranteed defeat for Ritter, but it doesn’t help anything. You can have a problem with Ritter’s governance, but realize what losing the Governor’s mansion means for the state.
We should expect more from our Governor, and I’ve been a harsh critic of him at times, but I don’t follow your logic here. Just because Ritter’s administration has been lacking means that Romanoff should run in a primary? It doesn’t make sense.
If you had a huge problem with Bennet, or the two were not so ideologically similar, then a primary might make sense. But don’t take out your frustration on Ritter by potentially throwing a wrench in the party’s machine.
Several earlier posters argued that a Democratic Senate primary might screw up Ritter’s reelection somehow. I don’t think that would necessarily follow, but even if the previous posters are right, I wouldn’t see that as a great loss.
I have great admiration for Romanoff and think he would be a great Senator. True, Bennet may knock my socks off as Senator, and if he does I’ll support him whole-heartedly. However, I just don’t see telling any candidate as talented as Romanoff to hold off on a primary in order to protect a governor as ineffective as Ritter.
Census.
Governor has huge influence over the execution and implementation of the census, and also of over-seeing the redistricting that comes from it is hugely important. The census, more than anything else, will affect Colorado for years to come. No way can we risk screwing with that.
I’d almost go so far as to say that, right now, the governor’s seat is more important for the Dems than a senate seat, but I suppose there’s a one word answer to that too: Cloture.
We should not jeopardize either of these seats. The costs would be too great.
How about Romanoff for governor in 2010?
But instead of a primary, the Dems could find another gig for Ritter ala Fredo from the Godfather.
Wait. What am I doing?
Primary! Primary!
Wade! Wade! Wade! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaade!
This is about the least convincing case I could possibly make for a Romanoff primary run. He got passed over? He deserved it more? He’s lived in Colorado longer? Great, I think Romanoff is a great guy! I would have been thrilled with him as a Senator. But if he wants to run against an incumbent in a primary battle, it would be nice if he had reason that… you know, actually affect the lives of people living in the state,
I think we’re so used to seeing idiots like McInnis on the other side of the aisle constantly talking about running for… well… everything, that we forget that the reasons for a politician’s candidacy are almost as important as their qualifications.
Romanoff campaigned for the appointment as hard as anyone. He made it clear as day that he wanted the seat, and that he had public support. He lost through a process in which he was a willing participant. Dems the breaks.
I would also add that Bennet has been a Senator for a whole 30 days. Maybe we should see what he can do with the other 800 or so days he has left. You know, have some evidence of why he’s no good. Some votes or something. It would make the case to run an expensive primary campaign a little more credible.
though Bennet’s just been a senator for three weeks, not 30 days.
I agree too. I can see the arguments for Romanoff but Ritter selected what looks like a quality individual and so lets wait and see how he does.
I think part of this carping is people upset that Ritter did not pick from their acceptable list. How dare he…
If Bennet’s the nominee, the GOP wins this seat – no question
NOTE TO ANDREW ROMANOFF FROM A GOP ACTIVIST: Please don’t run….. you’ve spent the last 10 years turning our good state into a BLUE one (even in 2004, when Republicans won nationally, except in Colorado)… clearly, you’re smart, energetic, and a good politician… beating you would be hard
Bennet is….. well… has never even ran for School Board and, despite promises of touring Colorado, we still haven’t seen him up here on the Western Slope… PLEASE RUN HIM!!!!
Honestly my Democratic friends here on CP — ya’ll need to grow a pair, disagree with your Governor, and get behind the guy that has, basically, been the Father of the Modern Day Colorado Democratic Party…. I think he deserves that much from you
And not that I’m trying to defend Romanoff (believe me – I don’t want us, as the GOP, to run against him and I vehemently disagree with 90% of this views), but after spending my entire summer and fall knocking on thousands of doors in running for the State House, it personally bothers me to know that my current Senator (Bennet) hasn’t done the same, whereas Romanoff has
Guys like Salazar and Udall, although I didn’t vote for them, worked their @sses off for years to get their Senate seats….. whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat, I want to know that BOTH of my Senators are hard workers, that know their state, love their people, and can demonstrate it by their outreach
I’m glad that there’s no question though. Hell, let’s save the money, not have an election, and let the GOP just put someone in the seat.
It’s kind of like how there was no question that Liddy Dole would be re-elected in 2008, or George Allen in 2006, or that Hilary Clinton would be the Dems nominee in 2008…
No question at all.
In January.
And will be here and in Delta next week.
I guess you don’t get out much.
The nerve of some people!
That was cold Pols… but damn funny.
Bennet’s at least been an active voter and participant in the process. Which is more than can be said for Ali, until he decided that he should be in the General Assembly and should probably cast his first vote.
is one of Colorado’s savviest politicians. He’s smart enough to test the waters but wait to make a final decision. Whatever he choices to do, to run in case Bennet doesn’t pan out as Ritter hopes, or hold back and fully support him, it will be made after careful consideration.
No one should take Andrew lightly when he says he’s thinking about running, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s actually going to do it. Remember all the rumors swarming around the 2006 democratic gubernatorial primary? Yeah, those didn’t come to fruition either.
I’m more than willing to give Michael Bennet a chance. We’ll see how well he stands up for the working people of this state. If he panders and caves to business, then I’m more than willing to back someone who will (with an intact public record to back him up on labor issues). EFCA anyone??