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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

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

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 07, 2010 10:52 AM UTC

CO Senate Race: Daily Kos

  • 55 Comments
  • by: wade norris

CO-Sen: Ras Sees Path to Victory For Dems–Through Romanoff?

In an interesting new poll out at the end of the week from Rasmussen, the prolific ones show a tightening race in Colorado for the U.S. Senate. The catch: that tight race only exists if the current challenger in the Democratic primary, former state legislator Andrew Romanoff, is the nominee. If incumbent Senator Michael Bennet holds onto the Democratic nod, he trails likely GOP nominee Jane Norton by nine points (48-39). If Romanoff somehow gets the nod, the margin gets cut to just two points (44-42). Good news for Bennet: he is now quite competitive with the other two potential GOP nominees, with numbers well within the margin of error.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

And you still think Romanoff is 20 to 1?

Tweet
Share

Comments

55 thoughts on “CO Senate Race: Daily Kos”

  1. then you know the disdain they have for Rasmussen Polls. If you are so confident why worry about the Senate line here? You always mention:

    1. The legislators supporting AR

    2. The Union support

    3. Being speaker of the house

    4. Being well know throughout the state of Colorado

    It does bring up one question though. With all this support and being so well known in the state – why aren’t AR’s poll numbers much higher?

    1. Last fall- perhaps not Wade, I’d have to look it up – team Romanoff was so confident that AR’s visiblity, name rec and party support would result in him crusing at caucus there was some speculation about whether Bennet would petition on if, when, he had to

      I’m sure both candidates by now have indicated they would petition on if necessary.

      I’m also sure that both will do well at caucus- better than some expect and not as well as some expected.

      As for the Kos reference- would rather see “real” polling, with data and methodology and demographics.  Not Rasmussen.

      In fact, we’re going to have a great poll in about 10 days.  It won’t tell us what we need to know, but it will be useful.

    2. i see you just created your account last month, yet are completely ready with your talking points.

      I will answer your question with a question:

      everyone here mentions how Bennet has the money to win, which is all that matters in a Senate race, and he has done such a great job in his first year, and Obama likes him

      so why is he polling worse than Romanoff?

      And while we are speculating about polls, yes Bennet has a lot of money, and we know that Romanoff paid for polling in the Spring that showed him doing well enough for him to get in the primary.

      So – it takes money for polls, and a candidate can pay for them, not wait for Rasmussen or PPP or someone outside the state to conduct the poll – and Bennet has more money than Romanoff or Norton combined – so do you really think Team Bennet has not paid for polling across the state?

      And if Bennet was doing so well, his polls certainly would be proudly proclaimed here by his supporters,

      unless those internal polls weren’t good news.

      hmm…

      1. I don’t remember you giving the Tool the same welcome as you seem to with every new Bennet supporter that signs up here. Or the MIU guy that I think got banned. Or…would you like me to go on, or it your hypocrisy even remotely apparent to you?

        Dude. When it comes to the talking points, you’re the master. Regurgitation has become your forte.

        Have a great day. I’m off to play.  

        1. you’ll notice i stayed out of those diaries, pending discovering who those guys were.

          (and they rightly were called out by someone else)

          The truth of the matter, is that i feel like people like you and me who have been going mano a mano on this site for over a year have some seniority,  and if some newbie comes in here from either side, i want to know what they are all about.

          denverco might be a regular enthusiastic Bennet supporter – but that person calls me out for what ‘i always mention’ yet that person has only 2 comments on their history – 1 accusing Romanoff’s campaign of having a ‘nasty  tone’ and #2 calling me out.

          I know you and I will disagree on the Senate race, but I do think there is common ground on issues and i think that if someone springs up here overnight and starts calling you out, you will rightly blog them in the mouth.

          have fun today – i went on a hike yesterday in Boulder – felt like summer.

          1. Because you WELCOMED the guy. It was either MIU or OToole because I remember RSB flat out asking you if you approved of his smear campaign.

            You blog about this race on several sites. I’m guessing that other people that blog here do the same so it’s a fairly reasonable hypothesis that he’s been reading your comments elsewhere. Or, he lurked here for awhile–I know quite a few people that read here daily but have no interest in logging on or commenting, mostly because we are a crowd of ruffians to new people. Or, this is his latest sockpuppet. 🙂

            Okay, enough sparring with you, mon ami. I hiked in the Park yesterday and am headed back today. The weather today beats it by a mile because there is NO wind–hurray! You can smell spring in the air, can’t you?

            I’m off to play. For real, this time. Have a good one, Wade.

              1. You Bennet supporters really should look in the mirror.  Ray Springfield, peacemonger, raymond1, MADCO, Middle of the Road – your only purpose here is make sure EXACTLY what the Bennet campaign wants out is out.  You do not care if the information, either they are providing to you or you looked it up on wikipedia (very reliable source), is even true.  

                I have not read one post (granted I have not been on here that long) that is attacking Sen. Bennet in the way you no talent ass clowns attack not only one of the most respected legislators in the history of Colorado but anyone who might support Andrew Romanoff.

                Besides, Sen. Bennet is not untouchable.  He is an APPOINTED Senator who is not entitled to his job.  NO ONE has voted for him and I for one want a choice.

                1. DId you just have that written and were waiting for an opportunity to use it?

                  I like speaker Romanoff. If he gets the nomination I’ll support him.  You should read some of the archive – there are plenty of posts  that attack Senator Bennet- some of then are even about true things he said and did and when he said and did them. though I would characterize the attacks as spin and opinion, at least people sometimes get the facts right.

                  As for attacks on AR-  don’t talk to me about it. FInd one “attack” piece I’ve posted and we’ll talk about it.  It won’t happen, partly because you won’t look for it, but mostly because I’ve not posted any.

                  By all means, let’s have a choice. Let’s vote.

                  I and others have  asked elsewhere why you are for Romanoff- and I noticed you offered a start. Do some homework and do the diary.

                    1. and that’s “shoo”. Just repeat it everytime it posts. Let it burn itself out with incoherent rage, and go mumbling down the street somewhere, causing passers by to hurry along, glancing sideways in mild concern and discomfort….

                    2. let the little attention whore starve to death. That’s what I do and it’s been working great for me. And does anybody here really doubt he’s a sockpuppet of one of our better known favorites here?

                4. …this site is called BannetPols.com. You’ve cited five, but there are others, of whom ColoradoPols is leader of the pack. I see in this very thread evidence that Steve Harvey has opened a branch of their club in Pretentioustown (if you can’t praise Bennet, go away, Steve Harvey at 14:42:16 PM, Tue Mar 09, 2010).

                  1. I recall quite clearly, JO that you oppose Bennet and I recall some of your reasons.

                    What I don’t recall is you ever answering the question why are you for Romanoff, other than , of course, you oppose Bennet.

                  3. Just a quick question for you–why do you delete your diaries when they don’t get any comments? Just curious about that. I see you do it quite a bit and I just wondered if we should post recipes in them or something to make you feel better since it seems you delete the ones that no one bothers to read.

                    1. and immediately comment on his own diaries so it will look like there’s interest.

              1. I must be living in a bubble of late because when my mom forwarded me the latest email from her right wing pals about Obama and Socialist Health Care, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. One hopeful piece of news is that they feel the left’s efforts to pass HCR are working and they want to overload the WH with protest calls.

                 

              1. People make choices, and their choices have implications. Personally, I think that too much irrational exuberance too often and too undiscerningly is an invitation to all sorts of errors, and citing an example of such a past (and particularly foreseeable) error to suggest that making the same mistake again (regardless of the quality of this particular candidate) is perfectly reasonable.

                Andrew Romanoff is a great guy and accomplished former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives who has done great things for the Colorado Democratic Party: He deserves our respect, admiration, and even, to some degree, indulgence when some of us disagree with his choices. But he’s not the Second Coming. He’s not even Barack Obama. If you’re going to post incessant odes to his infallability, then another poster posting a reminder of a similar choice turning out to have been for someone particularly fallable isn’t so far out of bounds after all.

                You really should chill out a little. You support Andrew, and what to argue the case for why he should be our party’s candidate for the U.S. Senate. Fine. Do so. But not every 10 seconds for six months running without taking a breath, dismissing and discrediting those who make another choice (who dismiss and discredit you in return). If you’re compelled to make the latter choice, then expect others to call you on your irrational exuberance, and to remind you of one of the reasons to temper it. The short name for that reason is “humility.”

                Without meaning to draw any comparisons between the two candidates (Edwards and Romanoff), I have to say that I never thought much of the judgment of those who were particularly adamant supporters of Edwards, long before he became mired in scandal. It’s not just a case of hindsight.

                If you think that having been wrong in the past, when you tried to convince others of something, is irrelevant, than you don’t hold yourself to a very high standard. You undertake a responsibility when you take it upon yourself to try to persuade others of what to believe. You had best balance your enthusiasm with recognition of your own fallability.

      3. I was repeating Your talking points.  The reason MB is not polling as well just yet is that he is still unknown – I think I would be more concerned being as known as AR and not polling that well.

        Perhaps MB supporters aren’t as insecure in their candidate as you seem to be in yours.

        By the way 9 points down this early in an election cycle is nothing. In the 1970’s Gov. Lamm was 22-25 points down in the spring in his re-election bid. He ended up winning big in the fall. And the state was far more Republican then than it is now.

          1. in 1974. I think denco is talking about 1978, which was a very Republican year (Floyd Haskell lost his Senate seat to Bill Armstrong — the last time a sitting senator has been defeated at the polls in Colorado).

        2. and i see that you are a true blogger since you have some history of Colorado elections.

          this statement

          The reason MB is not polling as well just yet is that he is still unknown

          This is actually one of the reasons why I think Romanoff is the better GE candidate – high name recognition among the Colorado Voters – it doesn’t hurt that he ran a successful Statewide Campaign for Referendum C in conjunction with Business and a popular Republican Governor (who later campaigned against measures like that in another state)

          Whether  Republican, Democrat or Independent  voter,  Romanoff has been in a name in the news since he became Speaker of the House in 2004.

          1. Since Romanoff has been a name in the news since becoming Speaker of the House in 2004 shouldn’t he be polling better?

            Up to this point he has run a terrible campaign.

            Make no mistake IF he wins the nomination I definately would vote for him ( I don’t want a shrill right winger like Norton as my Senator ). I just feel that Bennet is a much stronger candidate.

          2. Sheila MacDonald ran the C&D campaign. (let’s not forget it was a two-parter, the second part of which lost)

            And an issue campaign is a referendum on the issue, not on Andrew Romanoff.

            1. Romanoff helped craft the law long with Cary Kennedy. He was instrumental to its successful placement on the ballot through his wrangling of bipartisan support in the legislature, but the actual campaign wasn’t run by him.

              Romanoff did run the Amendment 59 campaign though. Of course, it wasn’t a success like Ref. C.

          3. Is AR the outsider with a gripe,

            or

            the been there, done that everyone knows him insider?

            I suppose he can be both – but I would think the contortions would be bad for his back.

      4. I can tell you with assurance that although I do not work for the campaign, I am close enough to employees to know there has been no internal polling, unless you count just support calls, which both sides do tons of.  There was one external poll which put Bennet one point above Norton (can’t remember the name) but that result was public. I suspect they are waiting for the big “poll” on March 16th.

        Also, Bennet definitely had an uphill challenge and has been the underdog all along. Andrew Romanoff has been campaigning in this state for a decade, Michael Bennet, unofficially, only a year.  Years and years  of campaigning has helped Andrew create a wide social network within the traditional party structure of people who have been involved 5-10 years. Bennet has to his advantage, new Dems, OFA Dems, independents, and people who have been involved in the party more than ten years. These are just my observations — I don’t have any research to back it up.  

        When I talk to voters on the phone, they say they know Andrew and do not know Michael very well. The Bennet campaign is doing all they can to help people get to know Michael, and as they do, most people love what they see.

        Again, two very qualified candidates.

        It will be an interesting election to see which categories of supporters are better at GOTV (or GOTC — get out to caucus).

        1. both candidates are significantly better than Norton, who won’t even let her rallies be taped or filmed, so she can pander to some of the more extremist views without the general electorate finding out about it.

          The shoe will drop this fall when someone comes forth with tapes of Norton saying something extreme.

      5. Talking points?

        Denverco gives a pretty obvious list, you call ’em talking points. You- The “false choice” king of spinning talking points.

        No one serious ever said money is all it takes to win. No one seriously believes that. But a candidate needs enough cash to budget for real media. This year, one D can and one cannot.

        I’ve never seen the poll Romanoff did last Spring published. Have you?

        I’ve heard it was a poll specifically to test the idea of challenging Ritter for Gov. But I don’t know because I’ve never seen it and never heard Romanoff discuss it. What do you know that the rest of us don’t?

        I’m sure the Bennet campaign has internal polling. It’s called “internal” for a reason. (Rumours abound- but your guy gets beat in all the rumours I’ve heard.)

  2. Why the Romanoff camp depends on Republican polliing, and goes on fox news is beyond me. I guess it makes sense. They are the only places he’s getting positive spin. They want the Democrats to split. He may have picked up a few points in the Rasmussen poll for hiring a man that calls enviromentalists communists and union members thugs.

    Someone should tell Romanoff that he’s running for the Democratic nomination.  

    1. peacemonger – I am getting sick and tired of doing your job for you.  You are accusing Wade of posting a link to his own post?  Here is the problem – it’s a post on Kos by a regular Kos diarist.

      Here is another thing – your (Bennet’s poll is one that was a combination of 2 separate months – why? Because just doing 1 month wouldn’t have looked so good given his continued downward spiral?

      I cannot believe the Bennet campaign still allows you to speak for them given your history of distorting the facts and flat out lies.

      1. Because wade is a regular on Kos it’s somehow not worth mentioning when he quotes himself and instead just refers to some thing from Kos when he quotes himself?

        That’s just weird.

        You don’t like the Harstad polling data- and you want to cut it up your own way, hire a pollster and do some yourself.

  4. Rasmussen Official Fox News Pollster. In 2008 Rasmussen Reports paired with Fox News to conduct

    the Fox News/Rasmussen Reports Battleground Polls. From Rasmussen Reports’ website, “Rasmussen

    Reports conducted six state telephone surveys in partnership with Fox News Channel on November 2,

    2008…Rasmussen Reports had conducted similar surveys in all six states for Fox News on October 26 and

    earlier this fall.” [RasmussenReports.com, 11/3/08]

    Rasmussen Most Favorable McCain Pollster in 2008. According to a 2008 Pollster.com article by

    Charles Franklin, “The poll most favorable to McCain is Rasmussen’s Tracking poll at just less than -3

    points.” [Pollster.com, 8/24/08]

    Nate Silver: A 2009 Pro-GOP House

    1. This reply, I hit reply.  So it threads and indents to your comment.  

      When the indents add up- eventually the comments just line up under each other. But they will have a parent button so we can always see if a comment was a “Reply” to which was it a reply.  

  8. This reply, I hit “Post A Comment”.  

    So it doesn’t “thread” and it will align left – no indent.

    And it will not have a “parent” button because it is the actual Diary to which was it a “reply” or a posted comment.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

66 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!