President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 07, 2009 12:44 AM UTC
89 Comments
Honestly, I was impressed by Sen. Bennet’s head-first dive into the stimulus debate, and think others around the state felt the same way.
Bennet thus far has been doing just about everything right. His breadth of Democratic House and Senate members run the gamut ideologically as well, which is encouraging for party unity in 2010.
It looks like Senator Bennet has managed to stay out of the line of fire that Gov. Ritter has been receiving.
The big concern when he was selected was whether Bennet would be able to command support in Democratic ranks. I think that concern is being put to bed.
to get supporters ready?
someone substantial running a primary against Senator Bennet. After the initial consternation about his appointment, I haven’t seen anything on the radar screen that indicates a primary and in politics something like that for a major office is never kept secret because too many people have to involved to get it started and sustain it.
Andrew Romanoff is a possible primary challenger for Bennet.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com…
And if that isn’t enough, Josh Penry was mentioned in “the Fix” as a potential GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in ’10.
And until said “elected officials” are ready to stand up and be counted, they seem content letting you be the only one to try and blow some air into this sagging trial balloon.
see you Saturday?
great!!!!
can’t wait
see you and ralphie there!!!!!
can’t wait
bring your sign!!!!
You’ll have Al Yates & Ted Trimpa doing a visibility with you? If that’s the case, then I’ll be very impressed with you.
America is about democracy. There is nothing wrong with supporting Andrew Romanoff.
In my opinion he’s the man singly most responsible for turning Colorado blue over the last 6 years.
let’s show them through what’s coming next.
… granted the lack of k-12 reform is the worst part, but wft when 50-30% of kids fail to graduate HS you don’t have to do much to show change.
Try something innovative like no drivers license until your 21 w/o a HS diploma (no GED free passes).
Financially bankrupt, America is morally bankrupt by producing multiple generations of an under educated class comprised of 30-50% of its population … even worst is the fact they have begun to breed the next set of low achievers that will drain the American GDP. — Thanks NEA and CEA!
See stick, follow carrot.
Your parody of a stupid person in this thread is hilarious.
Wholeheartedly. Enjoy yourselves. On the flip side, my democratic rights allow me to find Wade’s claptrap annoying–and for you to whine about that. “Yay” for democracy!
I suppose that you are truly a Chinese communist.One party line and if one doesn’t like it then they need re education.
The Beatles…….”if you go carrying pictures of Chariman Mao….you aint gonna make it with people anyhow.”
I suppose that you belivee the Dalai Lama whines about democracy.
I suppose that you’d feel that the founding fathers were whiners.
If you aren’t a communist, then you are a child. Grow up and show some respect for people who believe in loyalty.
No one who knows me calls me a whiner.
Anonymous mice do.
But you can’t read for shit.
The following passage of quotations from Chairman Mao describes your view of “whining about democracy.”
“Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership” (June 1, 1943)
“In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily “from the masses, to the masses.” This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.”
“This is the core of the ideology that made the Cultural Revolution so appealing to many young idealists; but in the end learning from the people turned out to mean learning only from Chairman Mao and his allies.”
I think that until “twas brillig” reveals his or her identity that I’ll refer to “twas brillig” in posts from now on as “Maoist Mouse”
Minnie or Mickey have more guts.
in 2000, resulting in 8 years of George W. Bush. Not only is there nothing wrong with including political calculations in choices of strategies in pursuit of more effective and fair social policies, but there is everything right about it. It’s a big mistake to idealize (or idolize) the system, and then defend a self-defeating strategy as being more faithful to that idealized system. The separate argument, about whether the cost-benefit calculation of “(costs times probability) compared to (benefits times probability)” yields a conclusion that a Romanoff challenge is a good idea, politically, for people who favor the progressive agenda, should not be conflated with the self-defeating argument that “democracy is good, so diffusely discouraging a primary challenge is bad,” especially since diffusely discouraging a primary challenge is democracy in action.
but Nadar was correct in that he didn’t cause VP Al Gore to lose.
I believe that United States Supreme Court caused VP Gore to lose.
The Court has done other horrible things in US History, i.e. separate but equal.
President Obama and Sec. of State Clinton didn’t lose from debate.
I believe that the Democartic senatorial candidate will win without regard to who is on the ticket.
This is quite a list. With a race in 2010 that is likely to cost a lot of money, this is definitely a great first step to show that he can raise the dough necessary to take on any Republican.
We cracked top 10 most likely senate seats to switch parties.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
But it’s clear from this list that a viable primary challenge is becoming increasingly remote — and look at that GOP bench!
The Post’s big mention is Josh Penry, who loses luster every time he or his caucus makes news.
for it, against it, punting, ducking, dodging, running for cover of the executive branch?
that continue to leave me thinking there’s no way Romanoff will run against Bennet.
but, alas, we will have to all wait.
kudos on the fundraiser, he’s going to need it.
Did you manage to sell out your table? Congrats.
Well, anyway, is this still about Romanoff being entitled to a Senate seat? Or is there an actual significant reason to challenge Bennet that affects people in the state? Let me know when you find a significant reason? (And no, “he doesn’t meet my liberal purity test” doesn’t count as a reason. I’m a liberal, and a pretty extreme one when you get down to it, but it sure looks to me like Bennet is doing an excellent job of leading a moderate state like Colorado in a progressive direction.)
and neither was Bennet.
Ritter messed up the pick by not going with a democrat that could have fended off primary rumors, Perlmutter, Hickenlooper, Romanoff etc.
any of those would have left the seat untouchable for a R challenge, not so now.
why is that? because you said so, and that you said your a liberal?
good for you, but voters like me want more than your word for it.
and
a position on the
Employee Free Choice Act
couldn’t hurt, if he is a progressive.
Dude, you are the one who is flacking the rumor(s). Talk about being self-referential.
started the rumors if the people did not want their opinions heard on the matter.
i view it as a matter of responsibility as someone who reports news.
Put up or shut up.
You keep talking about “people” and “supporters.” Always unnamed.
As people sometimes say, “If God had meant for Texans to ski, he would have made bullshit white.”
You are starting to have the same problem.
Put some actual facts into your incessant posts or STFU.
why don’t you meet me tommorrow at the JJ
Colorado Convention Center at 700 14th Street, Denver, CO 80202
with a sign
if you are there, i will consider your request.
I sure hope there is something to all the hints you’ve been dropping, because if there isn’t, then this will have been the biggest letdown since Moonraker’s African widow was a no-show.
with “the people.” It’s a bit presumptuous.
Your rhetoric is becoming increasingly confused and illogical: first, setting up a goalpost about a candidate fending off primary rumors after your incessant (and solitary) rumor-mongering which has gone nowhere; then admitting this with no awareness of the irony; and then mixing it all up with a “responsibility” to “report news.”
None of this leaves one with the impression that you really have a grip on all this.
but this:
where did you learn your methods?
you attack at nothing. I speak for others, while you attack me.
you do your education a disservice.
I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Here’s you:
Here you set up a political standard that you believe Ritter should have met, but:
Don’t you see how those two sentences together makes for comic gold!?!? And as if that wasn’t enough:
I mean…this is funny stuff! It’s a good thing Ray’s on your side, or he’d whip out the DSM-IV and accuse you of having a messiah complex.
I plan on staying out of this for the most part, but I really have to point that out to you.
They appear to be more disturbing anonymous personal attacks.
Below you lamely analogize my teasing of Wade to the PRC. Here you call for censorship for pointing out that Wade is making an ass of himself with his incoherent man-of-the-people schtick. The consistency there is marvelous.
Can you guys please grow a sense of irony? This is getting painful.
Please quote the “personal attack” and explain what makes it a personal attack; because I don’t see one in the post you replied to, nor in anything else written here by twas brillig.
If you don’t see where this person consistently insults Wade then you cannot read.
I’ll take this as a FAIL from you since I asked you to do a simple thing – quote the attack – and you didn’t do it. How childish. I’m surprised that you actually sign your own name to this stuff.
You start rumors so that “they” can be heard.
How altruistic of you, Wade.
the dean of modern progressivism is, like me, opposed to EFCA. It would be a huge mistake to try to make this issue, one that denies workers the right to a private vote on union representation (image that, a “progressive” opposing private ballots…it seems ludicrous on its face), a litmus test for who is and who isn’t “progressive”.
it does not explain why Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and President Obama support Employee Free Choice Act.
is that reasonable people can examine the issue and see things differently, and have honest disagreements about whether the EFCA is a good idea. Some might strongly support it, some might oppose it, and some might see it as having some strengths and weaknesses and hold off on taking a position until the bill is debated, amended, etc. And none of this necessarily has anything to do with whether one is conservative or liberal or progressive. Unless you want to argue that McGovern isn’t really progressive…
Anyway, this is all beside the point. The point is that your arguments for Romanoff to run have all been that he got shafted or deserved the nomination more. I actually agree that he would have been a better pick. But mounting a primary challenge requires more than that. It requires something like actual policy disagreements, or something else that affects people. (And no, having not yet taken a position on the EFCA isn’t a policy disagreement. If when Bennett votes against the EFCA, that will make the beginnings of a reason someone might legitimately want to challenge him. You would still remain a suspect leader of such a movement, given that you decided you wanted Romanoff to mount a challenge before the guy even cast a single vote.
Wrong. I have said since the beginning, that Romanoff was one of a few picks Ritter could have made, (Perlmutter, Hickenlooper, DeGette, Romanoff)
if he had picked any of those candidates, argument over.
he didn’t and from what i heard from the democrats in the field, Romanoff is who they wanted. Period.
But if that was supposed to contain a good reason to support Romanoff that actually affects people in Colorado… well, you must have accidentally left it out again. If, on the other hand, you just wanted to argue semantics… fine. You aren’t arguing that Romanoff was entitled; you are arguing that one of Romanoff, Perlmutter, Hickenlooper, DeGette, or Romanoff were entitled. Same thing; only the names are changed.
taken a position yet. I’m hoping, if it stays in its current form, he opposes it.
If it is amended to require a private vote among the petitioning unit within a specific timetable, then I would hope he would support it.
Free Choice=Private Vote
Oh wait, no I don’t, it was before I was born.
It’s just that literally the last time anyone cared about George McGovern was in 1972, which is 37 years ago. His current views are as relevant as Barry Goldwater’s were late in his life, i.e., not at all except to occasionally rub it in the faces of people whose side he’s nominally on. He’s far from any sort of authority on modern progressivism.
McGovern’s voice on the issue carries more weight than either yours or mine. Neither of us are being featured in ads funded by either side of the fight….
i.e., one side uses him to piss off the other side, but not a single person anywhere is actually convinced by that person’s endorsement.
wait we must.
I’m just wondering how long you can wait to spill the beans…assuming you have some beans to spill…
i don’t have to be the one to say it.
Just kidding.
Kudos to Senator Bennet. As I’ve written before, I think Bennet has a lot of political skill that is going to be increasingly recognized during 2009.
That he’s put together such a solid list of support (and let’s point out in particular all of the state reps.) after such a short time in office speaks well of him.
And I’m going to guess this event is going to raise a crap ton of money.
is to look who is not on the list of state reps and senators. How many said, “no” and
also, how many on the list are going but would switch allegiances? i know at least a few would (yes, i know)
and shit in the other.
See which one fills up first.
I guess that you see this board is about just flame wars.
How many people supported Sec. of State Clinton prior to the primaries?
You seem to believe that the party should be run like the PRC.
Like Democrats everywhere, I think it is important to give Senator Bennet the benefit of the doubt. He has a lot of hard choices to make, with the state of the country as it is, and I don’t think Democrats should be calling for a circular firing squad when we need to be united around finding solutions and helping President Obama lead the country out of the Bush Years.
It looks like a lot of other officials and supporters of Senator Bennet agree. That is good. We need to spend less time arguing about musical chairs and keep the dialogue for change going.
you think he and Rahm Emannuel said “we should quit and get out of the way” when Terry McAuliffe called all the democratic fundraisers and threatened them if they contributed to Obama?
Hell no, if anything, it made Team Obama fight harder.
This will too. If Mr. Bennet cares about what is best for the party and the state, then he will have to prove his merits in the primary process, just like Obama did.
the voters will be the ones who benefit.
As for the benefit of the doubt – if Ritter had not picked an unknown candidate, but instead picked Perlmutter, Hick or Romanoff instead do you think this race would even be on the Republican’s radar for 2010?
don’t think so.
Ritter made a poor choice, and that has nothing to do with Bennet or his ability, but it does invite this primary to the race.
Details soon…
Um, yes. Any replacement would have been on the Republicans’ radar. Don’t fool yourself.
And you overestimate that statewide appeal of the guys you talk up while harping on Bennet. Romanoff only got 12% in the poll conducted while everyone waited for Ritter to make his pick. And that’s because of low statewide name rec — the same critique that made folks anxious about the Bennet pick. I love Andrew Romanoff, but you are over-selling him.
Bring on your primary and “Accountability Now” and the all the rest of this purity purge horseshit. I am so fucking done with you people, someday you will wake up and realize you have become exactly what we hated most about the Grand Old Ideologically Cleansed Party. Who knows? Maybe it will be right after you hand back to the GOP all the gains we have so delicately made in this purple state since 2004–to sate your fucking egos. I’m just sorry somebody worthy like Romanoff is getting caught up in this.
You’ll all regret it, though maybe not in your twisted world where feeling righteous is more important than electing people who even remotely share your values.
Perlmutter will primary Bennet. And then Romanoff will move to Jeffco and run for the 7th. And then I will take Romanoff’s spot doing nothing.
Are you prepared to do that?
AHAHAHA……wade, I joke! I just couldn’t resist the opening. Forgive my indiscretions…again!
Seriously, Wade. Look, I like you, I think you did great work for John Edwards back in the day, assuming you’re the same guy.
But you’re starting to sound like the dudes on the 16th Street Mall trying to sell me the 9/11 Truth DVDs. That list up above is a list of people willing to put cold, hard cash to back Bennet up, and if they’re willing to do it, I’m guessing their networks of friends are willing to do the same thing.
You say you have names of people who are willing to support a challenge to Bennet in a primary. Who are they? Do they exist? Or are they saying this because they know that as long as they stay anonymous, no one’s going to call them out?
Looking at that list — it’s essentially the state Democratic leadership. So who are your elected officials? Name some names. Otherwise, those primary threats are empty.
this comes from an entity named roguestaffer
take your own advice
Mile Miles made us laugh and cry and brought us to our feet cheering…but we voted for Salazar…
Bennet’s problem is not going to be the democrats…it is going to be the rest of Colorado if the economy is bad…or dps goes belly up…
You voted for Miles at the convention and then voted for Salazar in August. 🙂
I stood up and cheered for Miles at the convention and then voted for Salazar, at the convention. :))
You outlined a couple of important points.
First, while it isn’t “primary season”, there are still things going on behind the scenes. I see this fundraiser as an attempt by Ritter to head off a primary. However, these people giving money doesn’t mean that if the economy continues to lag or DPS goes belly up and takes Bennet with them, these same people wouldn’t turn around and give to another candidate. As you said, it isn’t philosophy, it’s politics.
As for primaries: Having a particular issue of difference helps in a primary but it isn’t necessary. Primary elections can be waged on the incumbent’s effectiveness, personality, or just overall preference. A challenger would certainly be helped by controversial votes cast by the incumbent, but it isn’t required.
For the thread, not for you. 🙂
It’s a shame that we can’t have an impartial discussion about a possible primary. This set-up has so many places for OTOH, it’d be fun.
I think people think that if you discuss the possibility, it somehow makes a statement about one’s personal preference.
And that takes all of the fun out if it.
And I’ll take the underhanded compliment, thank you! 🙂
Bennet is a sitting US Senator. It is rare for a sitting senator to face a primary fight; so support should be expected.
I didn’t see Barbara O’Brien on that list…maybe I missed her.
I still say she is the one who needs to be bumped upstairs to free up the spot of state lt. gov.
Romanoff is a good guy…the dems should not shun him…they need to find a good place for him….all he did was back the wrong horse in the presidential. Time may come when the dems will need all the talent they can muster….
Nobody wants that. He will decide to be necessarily shunned, or not, all by himself.
Not exactly screaming libs:
Maria Garcia Berry, Republican, developer, and married to former Speaker of the House Chuck Berry
Craig Umbaugh – a Republican and in the oil biz
Maria Garcia Berry is not partisan….Maria Garcia Berry is a political consultant, etc….it is about being where the money is
there is not a gd thing wrong with that….
this is NOT about political idealogy…this is about being where the power is…
this is politics…not philosophy 101…
He should act now or forever hold his peace. The scent is getting cold on this Senate primary.
actually went to this funder? Thought this was a group of insiders talking amongst themselves …
but, alas, my wicked step-brothers (ahem, A and A) went without me, and left me to sweep the chimney alone…. 🙂
not the Bennet fundraiser!