Interesting news today from Missouri, via the campaign for Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan:
Missouri media outlets have pulled two misleading attack ads against Robin Carnahan being aired by Congressman Blunt's corporate special interest allies. This weekend, a Missouri network including 77 radio stations pulled a false attack ad being run by Americans for Job Security - a group with a long history of campaign related citations and violations. [Anchorage Daily News, 8/17/08; FEC.gov]
In addition, Karl Rove's special interest group, American Crossroads GPS, had their attack ad pulled down by CableNet while the FEC looks into allegations of illegal coordination between Congressman Blunt's campaign and Rove's group.
Both Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads GPS have run ads in Colorado on behalf of Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck, with Americans for Job Security (AJS) spending more than $2 million for Buck in the primary alone.
We've long wondered about potential coordination issues with Buck's campaign and these outside interest groups. The question first came to mind when Buck raised a curiously low $40,000 in the last fundraising quarter of 2009, because normally such a poor effort for a Senate candidate would all but end their campaign; the only way Buck could have remained credible was if his campaign (and high-level supporters) knew that there would be significant outside help available. Buck had raised $1.2 million for his campaign as of the July 21 reporting period, which was less than Republican Cory Gardner had raised in his CD-4 congressional campaign, and about half of what AJS spent just on TV ads on Buck's behalf.
The connection dug up in Missouri between Republican Rep. Roy Blunt and outside interest groups like AJS may very well end up being made with Buck as well, and if so, it will play a major role in deciding whether Buck can defeat Sen. Michael Bennet in November. If Buck doesn't have these ads on the air in Colorado, he's in trouble.
Last Wednesday's Ipsos poll showing GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck up by nine points over Democrat Michael Bennet widened a lot of smiles on the right side of the aisle--Republican-friendly polling firm Rasmussen Reportssobers them up today.
The U.S. Senate race in Colorado between incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet and Republican challenger Ken Buck remains very competitive.
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Buck picking up 47% support, while Bennet earns the vote from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate while four percent (4%) are undecided. Earlier this month, it was Buck 46% and Bennet 41%.
Though Buck has consistently led the incumbent since March, this is the highest level of support Bennet has received all year. [Pols emphasis] In each of six previous surveys stretching back to May, the former Denver school superintendent had earned between 39% and 42% of the vote. Bennet was named to the Senate early last year when Ken Salazar resigned to join President Obama's Cabinet. A county prosecutor, Buck has captured between 44% to 48% of the vote during that same time frame...
We've always said that polling done more than four months out of an election is relatively worthless, but now that we're nearing the 60 days until E-Day mark (Sept. 4, if you're counting), respondents are starting to voice opinions based as much on the candidates as on their Party affiliation. Case in point, check out the changing Very Favorable/Very Unfavorable numbers from a few weeks ago:
Candidate
8/12 VF/VUF
8/30 VF/VUF
Ken Buck
17%/ 20%
19%/ 26%
Michael Bennet
20%/ 29%
21%/ 30%
What the Very Favorable/Unfavorable numbers show is that Buck's overall lead is based largely on the generic Republican/anti-incumbent advantage that has shown up in polls throughout the year. But voters don't actually like Ken Buck the candidate the more they get to know him (nor do they really like Michael Bennet, either). The bottom line is that this race is going to come down to the wire.
We've gotten a couple of emails on this subject, so we thought we'd put a list together and see if the Pols community could help us fill it out. Which top-ticket Republican candidates (all statewide and congressional seats) have endorsed GOP Gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes, and who has yet to offer their public support?
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ENDORSING MAES
U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck
Rep. Doug Lamborn (CD-5)
Rep. Mike Coffman (CD-6)
UNKNOWN POSITION OR NO ENDORSEMENT YET
Treasurer candidate Walker Stapleton
Attorney General John Suthers
Secretary of State candidate Scott Gessler
CD-4 candidate Cory Gardner
CD-7 candidate Ryan Frazier
Help us out, Polsters! Maes' website doesn't seem to have an updated list of endorsements, so if you've seen one of the candidates in the second list make an endorsement, let us know.
Yesterday the campaign of Sen. Michael Bennet issued a press release detailing the fact that Republican Senate hopeful Ken Buck had missed at least 133 days of work (or about one-third of the time he should have been working) as Weld County District Attorney in order to campaign for the Senate.
Today, the Colorado Democratic Party issued a release calling on Republican CD-7 Ryan Frazier to pay back a chunk of his salary as an Aurora City Council Member since he has missed roughly 30% of his city council obligations in the last two years while campaigning, first for U.S. Senate, and now in CD-7.
Frazier's missed city council duties have previously been reported by the major Denver newspaper, and Buck's absences were recently reported by the newspaper in Greeley. We can't recall any prior candidate for a major office missing as much time in their prior elected positions Buck and Frazier. It's a staggering amount of absences, really, and doesn't do much to help them make the case that they're the candidates to fix an inefficient Congress; it's hard to be particularly efficient when you don't even show up for work.
This argument is particularly tough for Buck to repeat, when his opponent (Bennet) has a 100% voting record in the Senate...and his office is all the way across the country. In the month of July alone, Buck missed 25 days of work. 25!
But say this for Buck and Frazier: At least they've made their current jobs more attractive for future candidates. Run for my job, and you'll only have to show up one out of every three days!
We've taken our share of jabs at Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes for his colorful positions on random issues like the nefarious plot of the U.N. to take over Denver through a bicycle sharing program. But while Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck hasn't been nearly as entertaining as Maes (until recently, anyway), we wondered: Just how different are the two candidates at the top of the GOP ticket?
The answer, frankly, surprised us. Based on some of the core issues highlighted by each campaign over the past year, you could very well make the argument that it is Buck -- not Maes -- who is the more extreme of the two candidates. Handy chart after the jump:
MONDAY UPDATE: Don't look now, folks, but the Club for Growth appears to have quietly made a certain bullet point vanish from Ken Buck's endorsement over the weekend. The Buckpedaling continues! Round and round and round he goes! What does Buck really believe in? Nobody knows!
With apologies to Al Gore, it looks like Buck's support for eliminating the Department of Education has become an "inconvenient truth." We don't think, however, that this change on the Club for Growth's endorsement page (original text after the jump) accomplishes much besides making it look even worse--the confusion gave inquisitive readers ample time to confirm what Buck has actually said, and it's not ambiguous in the least. Original post follows, you meddling kids!
--
There seems to be some confusion out there about the precise position of GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck with regard to the federal Department of Education. As most of you know, Buck's primary opponent Jane Norton came out early and strongly for the wholesale abolition of the Department of Education--this turned into fairly negative press coverage for Norton, and in the days since Buck defeated Norton, Buck's supporters have put great emphasis on his allegedly more nuanced view. Supposedly, Buck has gone on record in favor of 'major cuts' to the Department of Education, but as supporters strain to point out post-primary, not its elimination.
Well, somebody should probably tell this to the stridently conservative Club for Growth, which lists abolishing the Department of Education as one of the, you know, reasons they've endorsed him.
Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck wasn't even a week removed from his Primary win over Jane Norton before he was being used as a bogeyman in another state. The New Hampshire Democratic Party has created a website that compares Republican Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte with Buck, Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
This is sort of a good news/bad news thing for Buck: On one hand, he's apparently well known enough that he is an effective foil all the way across the country.
On the other hand...he's apparently well known enough that he is an effective foil all the way across the country.
As our friends at "The Fix" report, another outside group is running ads to help the candidacy of Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck:
American Crossroads, the conservative outside organization that has pledged to raise upwards of $60 million for the midterm elections, is spending nearly $1 million on new television ads in the Colorado and Ohio Senate races...
...The Colorado ad, funded by Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) organization, hits appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) for a "spending spree" since coming to Congress early last year...
...American Crossroads is spending $500,000 on the Ohio ad and Crossroads GPS is dropping another $425,000 on the Colorado commercial, which is running in the Denver and Colorado Springs media markets. Both ads will run for a week.
While the group's fundraising started slowly earlier in the year, the 527 wing reported raising $3.4 million in June alone -- including $1.3 million from Public Storage Inc. Chairman B. Wayne Hughes.
Democrats have long fretted about spending from conservative-aligned groups in the final few months of the election erasing their financial edge heading into the fall. That advantage is much more pronounced on the House side -- where the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a two-to-one cash edge over its Republican counterparts -- but Senate Democrats also ended June with $2 million more in the bank than the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Buck recently hired a new campaign manager, John Swartout, who will take over the role previously held by Walt Klein, who will continue to serve as the General Consultant for the campaign. It's a nice job if you can get it -- Managing a campaign without really having to worry about fundraising.
SATURDAY AM UPDATE: As we suspected, Dan Maes is not proving agreeable to 'suggestions' that he exit the race--posted to his Facebook profile last night:
To be clear, the story is about high-level Republicans wanting Maes to get out of the race, or failing that to select a running mate from their approved roster. The only part of the "rumor" he has control over is his response--and for the time being anyway, there you have it.
--
UPDATE: In this video from a gubernatorial debate between Scott McInnis and Dan Maes at the end of last month, McInnis strongly defends Maes (and himself) from any attempt after the primary to force either of them from the race. McInnis calls attempts to force either of them out a "bait and switch," and flatly states it would be "out of line" to go against the choice of primary voters.
No doubt he still thinks so.
--
Top Republican "emissaries" are meeting with Republican Gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes today in an attempt to convince him to drop out of the race and let the GOP replace him with someone else.
According to an anonymous Republican source, GOP Chair Dick Wadhams is not among those involved in the meeting in an effort to keep some official distance from the process. The message from Republicans is that there will be no outside money and no fundraising assistance for Maes if he stays in the race, but if he drops out there could be support for him for future opportunities.
Republican leaders have been conspicuous in their public silence about Maes, and that silence was apparently part of the plan leading up to today's meeting. Top Republicans wanted to let Maes have a few days to himself after the election, hoping that their lack of attention would show him that he doesn't have the support he would need to win in November.
From what we have heard over the last 24 hours, however, Maes is unlikely to agree to any terms that would see him remove himself from the race for Governor because he truly believes that he has earned the nomination. As part of a last-ditch effort, top Republicans may try to get Maes to agree to their choice for a running mate, in hopes that a stronger Lieutenant Governor could be in a position to take over the ballot at some point.
It's important to keep in mind that these discussions are not really about finding a candidate who can win the governor's race in November. As we first reported in mid-July, Republicans recognize that their chances at beating Democrat John Hickenlooper are close to zero. What they want now is to find someone who can excite the GOP base and not be a drag on the ticket -- both for Ken Buck's U.S. Senate bid and for the downballot races. Maes can't win, and neither can a potential replacement; but at least a potential replacement isn't regularly being mocked both locally and nationally as a joke of a candidate. Maes' much-discussed "U.N. Bicycle Plot" is bad enough when he's just one of several candidates running in a Primary, but now it's the Republican candidate for Governor saying these things. That's a lot different.
Whatever the decision, Republicans don't have a lot of time to make it; the Secretary of State certifies the ballot on Sept. 3. A replacement candidate could still be programmed into the voting machines for early and Election Day voting, but the new name likely wouldn't make it onto the early mail ballot if something wasn't done before Sept. 3.
The back and forth on the [Social Security] issue in Nevada is a microcosm of what Democrats hope will be a broader debate in races around the country about what to do next on Social Security.
To commemorate the 75th anniversary, which is tomorrow, of Social Security becoming law, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has released a scorecard documenting 13 Republican Senate candidates who have expressed support for some form of privatization of the retirement system...
...Social Security is always a potent political issue but especially so in midterm elections where older voters -- to whom this issue is of critical importance -- comprise a larger segment of the overall electorate. (Older voters always vote.)
President George W. Bush's failure to pass a reform of the system played a role -- how much of one can be debated -- in the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate in 2006 and Democrats are hoping it will mitigate their expected losses in this midterm.
We have long included Social Security as an issue that would come back to bite Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck, and it looks like Democrats are planning on playing that angle as much as possible.
While it may have made sense for Buck to go after Social Security while trying to woo Tea Party support for a Republican Primary, it's not helpful to have statements like these on the record in a General Election:
At a March forum, he drew hearty applause after calling Social Security "horrible, bad policy" and questioning whether the federal government should be involved in administering it.
"I don't know whether it's constitutional or not; it is certainly a horrible policy," Buck said. "The idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better."
The ads write themselves: Vote for Ken Buck, and kiss Social Security goodbye! Anti-government conservatives may think this is great, but swing-voting senior citizens who rely on Social Security for their retirement? Not so much.
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
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 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
