U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 09, 2010 10:18 PM UTC
36 Comments
Most Democrats I talk to are thankful that the primary between Senator Bennet & Speaker Romanoff has been respectful and gentle. News alert – this is the worst possible primary for us. We need a brutal fight, with blood drawn on both sides.
That would get the ball rolling, and the viewer questions would almost certainly be on the topics you suggest above.
If “Your Show” can’t be extended, then at least some debate sponsored in a very public forum. It appears to be the only way we’ll get to see if there are meaningful policy, philosophical or stylistic differences between them.
As for uncovering GOP talking points, I doubt that either will confess to being in favor of maintaining the status quo, fewer jobs, less economic growth, runaway deficits, destroying the environment, or other key GOP platform initiatives.
If they do start to pound each other then an hour on TV with Adam grilling them would be great. But first they need to start competing for the seat.
I’d just like to see them square off together on the same platform.
Raise their public recognition factor — maybe get some sparks, but mostly let each define themselves for who they are and what they stand for.
The point of the primary is to get some visibility afterall.
And that requires more than just defining themselves. Because the GOP and its hit team will be busy defining them.
Their debates would demonstrate that a race to the bottom, i.e. shredding each other, isn’t the paradigm we really need.
is that AR is running for the wrong office. He should be running for Governor. And if you shot him up with some truth serum and maybe did a little waterboarding, he’d admit as much.
But now he’s stuck, not unlike some poor transgendered soul who needs a sex change operation but their health insurance won’t pay for the down to Trinidad.
I think your analogies could use some work.
I was channeling Hunter S Thompson today. I’ll work on it.
…LBJ was TG?!
See: Brady, Tom.
The Democratic Party traces its roots back more than two centuries; none of the candidates do. There’s a reason for this. It’s called ideology. It’s an element that needs much, much more attention, in general and on this site in particular. (Of course, and at the same time, the Democratic Party’s ideology has long evolved and today largely belongs, vaguely, to the post-Civil War tradition of democratic socialism tempered by Liberalism, but that’s another question for another time.)
The fact that individual candidates do not preach or practice Democratic ideology doesn’t mean it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, exist. The role of government in the economy is a key element, always has been.
My key gripe w/ Bennet is that he’s an ideological Republican–comes from and believes in unfettered capitalism.
Romanoff? Somewhat less clear, hence the ambiguity of this race. The fact that Romanoff hasn’t come out strongly to say he’s sticking with his decision to run for the Senate, to oppose Bennet for reasons that go behind his personal career, unfortunately gives him the flavor of an opportunist willing to run for whatever office he thinks he can win.
“My key gripe w/ Bennet is that he’s an ideological Republican–comes from and believes in unfettered capitalism.”
That may well be your opinion of him, but it is not borne out by an examination of his record as Senator, Superintendent of DPS, or as Mayor Hickenlooper’s Chief of Staff.
And never mind his position on social issues.
That fiscal responsibility = fiscal conservatism.
So when Michael Bennet talks about reducing the deficit, and spending responsibly, that’s on the same ideological level as the GOP.
…vote to reduce defense spending?
…raise taxes on incomes over $200k?
…protect domestic manufacturers from fixed-currency Chinese competitors?
…vote to restore Glass-Steagall? (OK, granted, that hasn’t come up for the vote. Is he pushing for it?)
… did he respond to Dodd’s proposed reforms by saying, in effect, ‘we need to get Republicans on board anything we propose’?
…push to control health care costs by providing government-provided care to everyone at fixed rates for services provided?
… refuse to accept campaign contributions from major financial firms?
Oh, I see, “reducing the deficit and spending responsibly” is limited to cutting/limiting social programs, NOT raising taxes or cutting defense spending. How ignorant of me not to understand that!
I know, I know Obama-Clinton was a knock down drag out and look how that turned out.
But
– if we brutalize our nominee here, he can’t go to another state and score more delegates.
– The CO hot button issues aren’t going to change just because the D’s shred on each other
– there is no real equivalent to the national 24/7 press cycle (present site and posters excluded) where the debate can be re-framed over and over
Instead, I would prefer the D candidates just get tough on the R candidates. Eventually we’ll be down to one D candidate and then we can toughen him up.
Even if we may not be able to make him appear ideologically sound enough for some.
for the case to be made that the Clinton/Obama primary is a good analogy for most other (including this one) elections.
First of all, Romanoff/Bennet is not running against a widely disliked incumbent. Second, Romanoff/Bennet will be running in a time when the economic blame will not so easily (rightly or wrongly) pinned on the Republicans. Third, Romanoff/Bennet will not have the massive resources of Obama or Clinton. Fourth, while Colorado is somewhat similar to the national electoral make-up, not exactly the same. Fifth, Romanoff/Bennet are not guaranteed to have an opponent whose various acts of self-destruction during the general election campaign render any primary harms moot.
And finally, I have yet to see any conclusive reasons as to how exactly the Clinton/Obama primary actually helped Obama in the general. Seriously, because the ads by the RNC using quotes from HRC on Obama’s lack of experience helped Obama somehow? Because intra-party divisions are beneficial somehow? You, and others, continue to assert that the primary “toughened Obama up” or something to that nature. Ummmm…. what? It’s a nice thought, but I don’t even know what that means practically speaking. Like before the primary Obama couldn’t handle watching a TV attack ad from a political opponent? Huh? You brush off the fact that they have staff, but guess what, “handling direct campaign attacks” is what the staff does!! Obama, Clinton, Romanoff, Bennet, or whomever is not going to be drawing up press releases or counter-ads whenever they get attacked, that’s what the staff does.
So again, what benefit is a “bloody” primary?
I think in your sports metaphor you’re overlooking a much different take on it. Imagine it’s the Superbowl, two teams are getting ready to face off. One coach has his team absolutely drilled the day before, full contact scrimmages, sprints, all day long non-stop, full contact stuff. The other team runs through some of their most crucial or troublesome plays, reviews tapes of the other team’s strategies, and has a brisk but light workout. Now, which one is a better bet to win the Superbowl the next day? I’d place the deed to my house on Team B everyday (that is if I had to bet my house on such a trivial thing, but you get my point).
So, (because repetition is a nice rhetorical tool), what was the specific and practical benefit of the “bloody” Clinton/Obama primary again?
And, even if there’s a good answer to that, how is that applicable to the Colorado ’10 senate race?
any way you slice it. Romanoff, who was a Clinton guy and comes from the DLC stable of Clinton followers, isn’t the establishment front-runner and presumptive nominee. Bennet, who backed Obama early, and whose political trajectory is more like Obama’s, isn’t the insurgent, either. There’s really no point to the analogy except that it’s the most recent and obvious one involving a Democratic primary, and that’s not enough to make it valid.
Thank you for confirming my long standing suspicion (that the analogy is bogus).
And then look at them at the end. Both were worlds better campaigners at the end. That real-world practice improves them significantly. And the same holds for the staff, it takes time and practice for a staff to start working smoothly.
Your point about the day before the super bowl is good – but I’m talking about their playing a pre-season set of games before the season starts – big difference.
Compare 2008 to 2004 when Bush was damaged goods but Kerry did not have much of a primary and so for the first couple of months against Bush was not campaigning well – and got destroyed.
The truth of pro football cuts deeply against you. Throughout training camp, the quarterback wears a bright red jersey and tackling (or even touching) him is strictly prohibited. Why? Because you don’t want your quarterback getting injured or (to join the mixing of metaphors) “bloodied up” before the real games begin. Pre-season football is notorious for not being nearly as intense a competition as regular season. Teams don’t show many of their plays to strategically hide them for use when it counts.
I’m not saying that the conduct of NFL teams should govern political candidates, it probably shouldn’t, but the truth is that to whatever extent the metaphor works it cuts directly against your argument. The preseason is not a time to go all out and physically punish your teammates to toughen them up, but instead is a time where contact is much lighter, to avoid injuring your teammates unnecessarily before the season begins.
I should never use sports metaphors as I don’t watch or follow sports.
Ok, how about in WWII when the US Army first invaded Africa and in that easier theatre learned the lessons they needed to be successful in Western Europe. If they had started in Europe, we would have lost that fight.
He was beyond help in a national election.
Dave, your historical memory is as good as your sports analogies. Bush wasn’t “damaged goods” until 2005, after Katrina and Harriet Miers.
And Kerry would have beat Bush. And that was after running an atrocious campaign.
for a long time. What does that have to do with any of your points?
but he managed the neat trick of making the election a referendum on Kerry and gay marriage rather than on himself. He was under 50% approval, which ordinarily would be a very bad sign for an incumbent. You can see his rating uptick to just barely over 50% right at the time of the election, then plummet again shortly afterward.
That on election day 2004, if any candidate in the election (other than Nader) was damaged goods, it was Kerry.
I think Dave is talking more about the early part of the campaign.
If a presidential election can be a relevant analogy, then the last few Colorado statewide campaigns must be as well. Governor Ritter won handily with no primary. Senator Udall won handily with no primary. Secretary Salazar won with a primary that many believe was serious and many believe was not. The only real truth to be gained about Colorado is that a “bloody” primary is in no way necessary for success in a statewide race. There’s certainly an argument to be made that Governor Ritter and Senator Udall benefited politically from avoiding a primary, but regardless of the merits of that argument or whether political strength alone should guide the process, either way the Rambo theory of political success seems incomplete at best.
My concern is that Bennet has never been in an election before. All of those other cases were people who had been in previous elections – they were experienced.
I think a robust primary helps regardless. But for Bennet I think it’s critical. Besides, if Romanoff isn’t going to even swing – why’s he in the race?
how about John Suthers, who had been appointed to a few high-profile positions before landing in Ken Salazar’s vacant seat at the AG’s office. How did his next election — without a primary! — turn out?
Suthers did run for the 4th Judicial District attorney job, which did involve facing an overwhelmingly supportive electorate.
to someone none of us had ever heard of. And who had no money or experience campaigning.
He beat O’Brien by almost 10 points.
But, to extend your tortured analogy, you’re saying Suthers might have had an even better chance if he’d been “bloodied” in a brutal intra-party fight? That a bunch of pissed-off Republicans ginned up in anger against Suthers would have been good for his election chances?