We're playing a little bit of catch-up in providing our analysis of the various different outcomes from Tuesday's Primary. Spurred on by a good Politico story today from David Catanese, here's our thoughts on how and why Sen. Michael Bennet defeated Andrew Romanoff in Tuesday's Democratic Primary...
Make your predictions below on who you think will win the big statewide Primary races. Get them in before 7:00 tonight to make sure you get full bragging rights for a correct answer, and we'll think up some sort of prize for the person who makes the most correct predictions.
PREDICTIONS
U.S. Senate (Democrats)
U.S. Senate (Republicans)
Governor (Republicans)
Treasurer (Republicans)
Tiebraker: The total number of votes cast in the Republican Primary for Treasurer.
Make sure to put your predictions in a numerical, percentages format. For example: Walker Stapleton over J.J. Ament, 54-46
We thought we'd again start a new thread with this information (click for the earlier post), now that we've got the latest (and last) update from the Secretary of State's office on ballot returns. Here are the ballot return numbers as of 3:00 p.m. today:
*Party/ Ballots Returned Thus Far/ Total Active Voters/ Percent Returned Democrats: 310,671/ 817,458/ 38%
Republicans: 358,953/ 855,667/ 42%
As we wrote earlier, these numbers have already smashed previous turnout figures for a Primary Election in Colorado, and they don't include turnout for El Paso and Weld Counties (which were not all-mail ballot counties). This could very well mean that Michael Bennet and Jane Norton will be the winners of their respective primaries because of their name ID advantage. We'd say the same thing for Scott McInnis in the Governor's race, but we have a feeling the undervote in that one will be huge.
UPDATE #2: More interesting voter trends from Magellan Strategies, a Republican polling and consulting firm, show that at least 28% of Republicans and 32.5% of Democrats that have voted thus far are casting a ballot for the first time in a Primary Election.
-----
UPDATE: In 1998, Colorado saw primaries on both the Democratic and Republican sides, for both U.S. Senate and Governor. Turnout in the 1998 Primary was 25.5% for Republicans and 19.7% for Democrats, so we are well into record territory here.
-----
Kudos to the Colorado Secretary of State's office, which is going above and beyond the call of duty in reporting ballot returns early today. The numbers below are as of Noon, while a second report will come out after 3:00 p.m.
*Party/ Ballots Returned Thus Far/ Total Active Voters/ Percent Returned Democrats: 298,062/ 817,458/ 36%
Republicans: 340,788/ 855,667/ 40%
Considering that El Paso and Weld Counties are two of those that are not conducting all-mail balloting in Colorado, it's safe to say that these numbers are going to rise significantly. This is really good news for the campaigns of Sen. Michael Bennet, Jane Norton, and Scott McInnis, because (as we've said repeatedly) the more well-known candidates almost always benefit from higher than normal turnout. Both Democrats and Republicans are voting in record numbers, easily surpassing turnout from any of the three previous Primary races.
The one caveat here is on the Republican side, where there have been rumblings for weeks of Republicans undervoting on their ballots. So while it's true that a record number of Republicans are returning their ballot, it may not be true that a record number of people are actually voting in the Senate or Governor Primary. We'd say it's more likely that people are undervoting the Governor's race than the Senate race, but the point here is that these returns may not mean as much for McInnis as they will for Bennet.
Richard Coolidge, the Public Information Officer for the SOS Office, also included these handy tips with today's report:
The question is "When" not "If" provisional ballots are counted. Primary night results are only an initial tabulation. The OFFICIAL count is due 13 days after the primary when the canvass board meets and reviews the votes. This 13 days allows time to verify provisional ballots and time for overseas military ballots to arrive (8-day extension for these ballots).
When will results be posted? Clerks are allowed to process ballots 15 days before the election. For the most part, counties will have most ballots cast up until Monday-ish processed and ready for tabulation after 7:00pm tonight. The rest of the results will be forthcoming. Obviously, your patience waiting for these results is most appreciated.
POLS NOTE: In order to make comments easier to read and understand, we decided to create a new post for these returns, rather than just updating the original post.
Below are the turnout numbers reported a little after 3:00 p.m. today by the SOS. Remember that there is some lag time in the reporting process (in other words, there are more ballots returned than what is listed below, but what is listed below is what the various County Clerks reported to the SOS today):
*Party/ Ballots Returned Thus Far/ Total Active Voters/ Percent Returned Democrats: 279,462/ 817,458/ 34%
Republicans: 314,264/ 855,667/ 37%
Richard Coolidge of the Secretary of State's office also included this note in today's ballot update:
Colorado County clerks may begin processing (not tabulating) ballots 15 days before the election. All 64 counties should have a good sample of mail ballots tabulated after 7:00pm tomorrow evening. Remember, 46 counties are voting exclusively by mail, so ballots received Tuesday may not be included in that original release of results. The remaining 18 counties will still have mail results, but will also need to factor in votes cast at precinct polling places (like El Paso, Pitkin, Las Animas, etc) or at vote centers (like Weld, Park, Archuleta, etc).
Our read on these numbers? The Michael Bennet campaign is going to be sweating it out tomorrow, hoping to see turnout reach levels cross well into the 300,000 level (the higher the turnout above 300,000, the better the odds that Bennet wins).
As for the GOP turnout, we're curious to see how big the undervote might be. Turnout is pretty high already considering the amount of grumbling from Republicans over their (lack of) great choices for Governor, and to a lesser extent, U.S. Senate, but if most of the returned ballots are casting a vote in the race for Governor and Senate, this benefits Scott McInnis and Jane Norton in their respective races.
New polling out this morning from Public Policy Polling has some interesting numbers across the board in the three top-ticket Primaries in Colorado:
U.S. Senate (Democrats) Michael Bennet: 49%
Andrew Romanoff: 43%
Undecided: 9%
U.S. Senate (Republicans) Jane Norton: 45%
Ken Buck: 43%
Undecided: 12%
Governor (Republicans) Scott McInnis: 41%
Dan Maes: 40%
Undecided: 19%
It looks like all of these races are going to come down to the turnout numbers, with higher turnout favoring Bennet, Norton and McInnis (because these three have the highest name ID in their respective races). The Secretary of State's office will release the latest turnout figures after 3:00 p.m. today, so check back here for that update.
We're getting credible word of some interesting last-minute developments ahead of Tuesday's primary. We want to be clear that this is preliminary, and (of course) dependent on what happens in the election. But it is based on good authority from high-level GOP sources.
There is some thinking in GOP circles that gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis could indeed be persuaded to exit the race following a victory on Tuesday--if he has a say in his successor, and if he were provided with a 'suitable' career landing. If that happens, the story we've heard is that Jane Norton would very much like to be selected as a replacement gubernatorial candidate.
Sources are clear that this does not mean Norton is anticipating a loss in her Senate primary against Ken Buck. What we're talking about here is strictly a contingency plan, but one that Norton is sufficiently interested in pursuing to have started putting out feelers. As you know, of course, polls do show Buck with an enduring lead after weeks of hard-nosed campaigning.
What's truly ironic about this situation is the person emerging as her chief competitor for the selection, Norton campaign manager Josh Penry, remains very much interested by all accounts. Obviously, the vacancy committee who would appoint either of them--itself dependent on a decision from McInnis that others insist he will never make if he wins the primary--remains the biggest "if" in a situation with several unknowns.
A poll follows--file all of this in the same place you've been putting those "Romanoff for Mayor" rumors (but in the "much more likely" category) and we'll see what happens Tuesday.
We were critical of the latest ad from Democrat Andrew Romanoff, called "Greed," for saying that Sen. Michael Bennet "pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars." While there are certainly votes and other issues that Romanoff could use to criticize Bennet, this ad went way beyond just negative campaigning because it outright lied in accusing Bennet of stealing from companies.
Well, the three biggest Denver news networks have all come out with their "Truth Test" or "Fact Checks" or whatever other clever name they have for checking the accuracy of campaign ads. The result: 3 out of 3 say the main message and components of the "Greed" ad are false.
Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck was caught on video at a recent event explaining his position on abortion, which is about as far right as you can go:
While this position may help Buck in a primary, it is definitely going to be a handicap in a General Election. Colorado voters are largely pro-choice, and most who are pro-life are much more moderate on the issue (which is why the Personhood Amendment was absolutely crushed at the ballot in 2008).
UPDATE #3: In an email just sent out by the Romanoff campaign, Romanoff repeats the same canard as earlier. Clearly this has become a huge problem for the campaign, and it didn't need to be. If only Campaign Manager Bill Romjue had just kept quiet for a few more days...answering the question about DSCC support may very well prove fatal to the Romanoff campaign.
Here's Romanoff's newest statement:
I don't take any PAC money now, I have not done so at any point in this campaign, and I will not do so in the general election. I don't know how to make my stand any clearer.
To set this matter to rest, I took one further step today. I vowed to ask the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to exclude any PAC dollars from contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.
We don't want to get too caught up in semantics here, but there's an important phrase in this statement. Romanoff says "I vowed to ask" the DSCC to exclude PAC dollars. He didn't vow "not to accept PAC dollars," because that would be impossible. He knows the DSCC cannot separate PAC money out of its bank account and give Romanoff only the "PAC-free" funds, so he's really just vowing to ask for something he can't have.
And on that note, we vow to ask Santa Claus for a unicorn this Christmas!
-----
UPDATE #2: Romanoff has issued a statement in an attempt to clarify: "After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf."
This statement is, of course, absurd, because there is no way to separate PAC money from non-PAC money when it all goes into the same account. This would be like saying you want to only eat the healthy parts of a cookie after it has already been baked.
-----
UPDATE: Romanoff's campaign told Politico that the Colorado Statesman article referenced below was "inaccurate." In its own story today, the Statesman stands by its original reporting:
The Statesman's editor and publisher said the newspaper stands by its story...
...Romanoff sat with a reporter from The Statesman for an interview immediately following a Jan. 19 press conference where he declared he was still running for the Senate - after rumors swirled he was instead considering a run for governor - and made his most uncompromising statement to date about his refusal to take money from political action committees, which he labeled part of an "incumbent protection racket."
"Andrew said what he said in response to a direct question about the DSCC," said Statesman editor Jody Hope Strogoff, who has covered Romanoff's political career for more than a decade. "If he'd like to make a case he was answering a different question than the one he was asked, he can do that. But he's had more than six months to correct the record."
Strogoff pointed out the Romanoff campaign hasn't been shy about challenging newspaper stories that have appeared in The Statesman or elsewhere.
This is the automated call going out to registered Democrats across the state against Sen. Michael Bennet on behalf of Andrew Romanoff, from a group calling itself "New Leadership in Colorado"--who wants you to know that they're "not one of those shady groups calling you."
But they are attacking Bennet for "voting to give a bailout" to "big banks who wrecked our economy."
It shouldn't even be necessary to note that this robocall is telling a bald-faced lie--Michael Bennet wasn't even in the Senate when the "big bank bailouts" passed in late 2008. But it's clear enough that being factual, or even remotely close to factual, is not the goal of this robocall--because robocalls are considered to be an under-the-radar way of planting messages with voters you don't necessarily want to claim as your own, that all makes sense.
According to the Colorado Statesman, writing last week about other negative radio ads that suddenly cropped up against Bennet, "New Leadership in Colorado" is a 527 run by a former AFL-CIO chief of staff named Debbie Wamsley. Who, evidently, is totally cool with lying to you if it makes you more likely to vote against Michael Bennet.
FRIDAY UPDATE: Here are the turnout numbers as of 2:45 p.m. today. It looks like a lot of voters are still holding onto their ballots:
*Party/ Ballots Returned Thus Far/ Total Active Voters/ Percent Returned Democrats: 245,477/ 817,458/ 30%
Republicans: 269,646/ 855,667/ 32% -----
Previous updates and original post after the jump
All campaigns (at least those that are really trying to win) eventually go negative in their advertising and messaging. Both candidates for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate have long since crossed into negative territory. On the Democratic side, Andrew Romanoff first crossed that threshold about 10 days ago, which in response prompted the first negative ad from Sen. Michael Bennet.
The definition of a negative ad is focusing on a perceived weakness of your opponent, as opposed to pointing out your positive aspects, and we've never had a problem with that. But Romanoff's newest negative ad targeted at Bennet, which was ripped today by the major Denver newspaper, is different.
The ad, called "Greed" (embedded after the jump), says that while working for Phil Anschutz, Bennet "pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars."
You read that right -- Romanoff's ad essentially says that Bennet intentionally bankrupted companies in order to steal money from them. That's way beyond a negative ad because it's factually wrong. And intentionally running inaccurate ads to smear your opponent -- well, that's a crap move that's no better than Jane Norton using 9/11 imagery as a scare tactic. Nobody can say otherwise -- not with a straight face, anyway.
Obviously, Romanoff is pulling out all of the stops in an effort to upset Bennet, but in doing so he has flushed down the toilet the primary message of his entire campaign: That he is a "different" politician who wants to be a Senator "for the rest of us."
So long, "Regular Guy Andrew Who Won't Go Negative."
Hello, "Same Old Politician Who Will Say Anything In Order to Win." Maybe it will get him a Primary victory, and maybe it won't (we still think Bennet will ultimately win). But if it does...is it really worth the cost? Intentionally spreading egregious lies about someone in your own Party, just to win?
Today "The Fix" provides its list of the 10 most interesting primary fights in the country, and Colorado's Republicans made it into two of the top three!
Most interesting, however, is that "The Fix" notes that Scott McInnis leads Dan Maes by 15 points in the race for the Gubernatorial nomination, while Jane Norton may now be leading Ken Buck 45-40 in the Senate Primary:
3. Colorado governor (R, Aug. 10): What happens if you hold a primary and the party regulars don't want either candidate to win? That's what's happening in Colorado at the moment with scandal-plagued Scott McInnis (plagiarism) and Dan Maes (campaign finance violations) battling it out. A survey shown to the Fix and conducted by a Republican pollster in the last few days put McInnis ahead by 15. If he manages to win the nomination, there will be a major push by establishment Republicans to push him out. But will McInnis go? (Previous ranking: N/A)...
1. Colorado Senate (R, Aug. 10): Just when Weld County prosecutor Ken Buck looked like he was going to pull off an upset against former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, he made a series of impolitic comments -- the most potentially damaging of which was calling elements of the Tea Party "dumbasses". A poll conducted by a major Republican firm looking in at the governor's race in the last few days showed Norton ahead 45 percent to 40 percent, which suggests that Buck has incurred considerable political damage. (Previous ranking: 3)
A group called "New Leadership Colorado" sent out a press release late this evening showing Democrat Andrew Romanoff within striking distance of Sen. Michael Bennet in the race for the Democratic nomination for Senate. "New Leadership Colorado" claims that it has no ties to either Romanoff or Bennet, but obviously their interests are with Romanoff (because there would be no other reason to announce this otherwise).
The automated phone survey shows Bennet leading Romanoff 44-40, with what they say is a margin of error of +/-3.6%. Given that every other head-to-head poll released to this point has shown Bennet with a double-digit lead, this is good news for Romanoff, right?
Maybe.
The polling and memo was done by a Democratic communications firm called Zata3, a name that should be familiar to many politicos for their robocalls, direct mail and other communications tools such as text messaging.
But what Zata3 does not normally do is polling. That doesn't mean that they definitely don't have these numbers correct, but they are not a polling firm. You hire Zata3 to do persuasion phone calls or text messaging -- not polling -- just like you wouldn't normally hire a polling firm to do your direct mail (or for a real-world example, you wouldn't go to a dry cleaner to buy a sandwich). This is no knock on Zata3, it's just that it seems odd that you wouldn't use a professional polling firm if you wanted real polling results.
We wondered when we first got the press release at 6:17 PM why anyone would release something this potentially helpful so late in the day; normally you would never send something to the press this late because it would almost certainly get buried and not make it on the news. But perhaps that was the point -- to put it out late enough that news outlets wouldn't have time to really check into the data and the "pollster."
The Q2 fundraising numbers for Democrat Andrew Romanoff are out. Romanoff raised $619,814 in Q2, spent $657,454 and now has $464,340 cash on hand (compared to $2.6 million COH for Sen. Michael Bennet).
These are decent fundraising numbers for Q2 for Romanoff, but his low cash on hand figure is no doubt why the campaign was refusing to release numbers on its own. From what we hear, Romanoff has spent at least $300,000 on television, which means he's going to be spending every cent as he raises it from here on out (considering that he'll still need money for office space, staff salaries, etc.) And while Romanoff's Q2 haul was good by his own historical standards, it's probably not enough to get him the kind of TV time he needs to defeat Bennet.
Newspapers from around the state have begun rolling out their endorsements of candidates in advance of the Aug. 10 Primary. We'll be keeping track of these endorsements after the jump (and please help out in the comments section).
How important are these endorsements? That depends entirely on what you do with them; newspaper endorsements are only as useful as a campaign makes them out to be. Endorsements from a variety of larger-name newspapers can look good on a TV or radio ad, for example, and can help give the impression that a candidate has support from across the state. Obviously, this kind of strategy is more important for an underdog candidate, but even a frontrunner can benefit from this kind of "third-party validation." Outside of a campaign using the endorsement in paid media, these endorsements have little impact.
The campaign of Sen. Michael Bennet has announced a cash on hand total of $2.6 million, or about $2 million more than both Republicans Jane Norton and Ken Buck have reported. The campaign of Democrat Andrew Romanoff is not releasing fundraising reports itself, which means that we may have to wait at least a week to find out what the Democratic challenger raised in Q2.
We'd say the gloves have officially come off in the Republican race for the U.S. Senate. Jane Nortonhas started running a commercial attacking Ken Buck over the special-interest ads that have been running against her. "You'd think Ken would be man enough to do it himself," she says.
Meanwhile, a YouTube video showing that Buck's campaign may have had prior knowledge of some of these third-party ads (which, of course, would be illegal if there was any sort of coordination involved) has popped up.
