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 18, 2010 04:36 AM UTC

The Biggest Loser: Michael Bennet Edition

  • 91 Comments
  • by: StrykerK2

I’ve spent a lot of time today talking with my fellow democrats, and it seems like everyone but the Bennet campaign agrees: Michael is in trouble.  The caucus can’t be viewed as anything but a total disaster for the campaign.  As a sitting senator, Bennet had the full backing of the President, Organizing for America, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  Of course as the campaign likes to point out, they also had millions at their disposal.

Despite everything Bennet had going for him, he lost.  No amount of spin about expectations or how a sitting senator can be a Washington outsider can change that fact.  Despite the money, the position, and the resources at his disposal, Bennet lost the caucus to a campaign that they view as nothing more than an unorganized band of ruffians.

Obviously it would be over the top to indicate that this is a deathblow to the campaign and they might as well quit, but it’s a really bad start to the primary season…and it’s not the only problem they are facing.  A few days before caucus, Public Policy Polling came out saying that Romanoff was the strongest Democratic candidate to take on Jane Norton.  (LINK).  The Romanoff campaign took that poll and ran with it – making sure that every potential caucus-goer, every news outlet, and every Democrat they could reach saw the report.  Clearly it worked.

Q1 numbers don’t come out for two weeks, but it’s evident that the Bennet campaign spent a lot of money going into the caucus.  Direct mail, staff, paid phone banks, robocalls, and who knows what else.  As much as they want to downplay the importance of caucus, it’s clear that they expended considerable resources towards it.

So how important is money banked right now?  Clearly less important than the Bennet campaign wants to make it seem.  They raised (and have probably spent) a lot of out of state money, but they aren’t building a continual donor base.  Compare that to Romanoff.  At the end of last quarter, the Romanoff campaign touted that they had more donors from Colorado than any campaign for any office in the state.  A base of several thousand instate donors can sustain the campaign for months to come.  Unlike Bennet who has leaned on fewer donors each giving larger amounts, Romanoff has built a following.

A second point on money (since people on the blogs seem to make so much of Bennet’s fundraising).  I keep hearing the argument that only Bennet can win because he’s the only one raising millions to combat Norton’s millions…except that she hasn’t raised millions.  In fact, her fundraising has been about where Romanoff’s has been, and she’s spent a lot on television already.  If Buck pulls off an upset and is the R nominee, his fundraising has been weaker. (and of course Romanoff is already polling ahead of both of them).

I’ve waited on posting about this race before.  I’ve followed the discussion regularly and seen the heated exchange on both sides of this race.  Mostly I didn’t want to get involved in the bickering.  Also I was curious to see how the caucus turned out.  Given Romanoff’s victory, I think it opens up new dialogue than we had before.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

91 thoughts on “The Biggest Loser: Michael Bennet Edition”

    1. The idea was to start an actual conversation about how bad of shape it seems like the Bennet campaign is in and whether he’s actually the stronger candidate in any substantial way.

      I mean if the Romanoff campaign is really the disaster some folks on here like to say it is, shouldn’t he have cleaned up in the caucus?  I mean getting 22K democrats out should have been like a GOTV warm up lap for the type of massive operation Bennet had…but Romanoff beat him pretty substantially.

      But if you prefer, I suppose you can consider yourself satirized.  

      2. you see, what team Bennet does, is register someone in early january, let them post some innocuous stuff and then, after some people trust their posts, come out with an Romanoff slam diary, like this Bennet slam diary.

        Just trying to help team Romanoff.

          1. when this site is made for keeping people’s identity secret?

            you have me at a disadvantage, knowing my name,

            so I will ask you, denverco – why did you join this site last month and what is your line of work?

            1. 1.) My name is Joe Kelaidis

              2.) I’m a native Coloradan

              3.) I’m a life long Democrat – Bobby Kennedy was the first campaign I was active in (although I did help my parents stuff envelopes for JFK )

              4.) I found this site last month – I’m sorry I wasn’t here from the beginning like you.

              5.) I do medical coding for a living

              And finally – you sir are a jackass

              1. I cannot confirm nor reasonably even comment on 1-5.

                But as for your conclusion, I believe it to be over simpistic, perhaps a snarky joust to play on the “This site is filled simpletons..” Perhaps just a less is more observation.

                But surely it didn’t take you since January to determine that.

              2. a real person. My wife works in the same field.

                You are one of the few who have contacted directly and pulled off the mask –

                one of the others – RSB – also referred to me in the same manner when I challenged him, and though it strained our relationship at first, at least it began a real relationship.

                Now, it is my turn to improve on the negatives of this situation.

                thanks

                wade

                ps. the ‘Coach’ who gave me my shot as a radio talk show host (on hiatus)

                worked on Bobby and Teddy’s campaigns –

                boy does he have some good stories of those days.

        2. That’s one of the most ludicrous things I’ve read on this site, and that’s really saying something. You can’t possibly believe that.

          I think blatant lies should be against the policy of the editors of the site.

          Your own words, Wade. I think you need to stop, think, and count to ten before clicking post.

            1. I must have missed your evidence behind this statement:

              you see, what team Bennet does, is register someone in early january, let them post some innocuous stuff and then, after some people trust their posts, come out with an Romanoff slam diary

              That is utter bullshit. You can create as much conjecture in your mind as you want, but you will never be able to prove who’s a shill and who’s real. So just give it a rest.

        3. I’m not really inclined to think this is a “bennet slam diary.”  honestly I tried to steer away from the usual stuff you hear (bennet can’t win because he takes corporate money and such), but rather wanted to focus on some facts from the last week or so.

          It doesn’t look promising for him sure, but don’t think it’s really a slam diary

          2. I was hoping you would join this conversation actually.  I know you have been really active with the Bennet campaign, so I was curious on your thoughts as someone who has been around CO politics for awhile.

            Not to repeat everything here, but with everything Michael had going for him leading up to the caucus, what are your thoughts on his loss?  Is it that the OFA/Obama/DSCC machine is ineffective or is it something unappealing about Michael?  I don’t mean offense — I know you’re a big fan.

            1. This is due to his activist base. It was the whole reason that he entered.  Time will tell if he can raise money.

              We took their best shot. As mentioned elsewhere, we have the initiative now.

              1. I love this argument Ray.  I actually hope that you keep making it.  I really love hearing that Romanoff has the support of the democratic base and that it’s not Bennet’s turf.  So that leaves Bennet’s base as…Anschutz supporters?

            2. I am disappointed in myself that I didn’t blog before now.  I did send a piece into the Statesman which is as yet, unpublished.  My kids have been sick and I frankly, was just plain tired after caucus. It feels good that I was missed.  ; )

              I will blog now.  Thanks for the encouragement.

  2. The Democrats on this site need to understand that Bennet is in trouble. He is a target of the anti-incumbent mood that has been percolating since the financial collapse in 2008.  Many in this state view him as Bennet, the banker bought boy (BBB) that gets lots of money from the east coast and very little from the citizens of Colorado.  Plus I’m hearing more and more resentment from Democrats who say they don’t want Washington DC insiders choosing our candidates.

    1. People at my caucus were offended that Romanoff felt that this Senate seat was owed him.

      I guess if you prefer career politicians he’s your guy. His no pac money comes off as phoney since he has taken it up until now. Plus you will find members of the DLC are not the progressives you think they are.

      1. denverco-

        Do you actually have anything to say regarding any of the points in this diary or are you just interested in regurgitating campaign talking points that saturate most of the rest of these?

    2. Which is it:

      the outsiders are running everything

      or

      the outsiders  have been proven to be meaningless by the caucus.

      I may not have been paying attention as well as you and the many,  but I’m pretty sure I’ve been watching a primary challenge that resulted in a contested caucus not long ago… and that Colorado Democrats are even now going through our Colorado process for choosing our Democratic candidates. Well, 22,000 of us anyway.

      1. You say you followed the discussion regularly and waited on posting about this race and didn’t want to get involved in the bickering.

        But then you frame the debate in terms I do not accept. “total disaster” Is not how I nor anyone I talked with today view the caucus.  Yet you say it cannot be viewed as anything but.

        If not, over the top. Close enough for jazz.

        Then  you  say  “The idea was to start an actual conversation about how bad of shape…”  See- I do not accept your premise.

        Mr Elected official, when exactly did you realize that your affair would be a problem for your campaign?

        The appropriate response is to walk away and not address the question- unless of course it ‘s true.  It’s not.

        1. Maybe I should have been clearer.  I started with the point that I talked to a number of friends who are Dems and they all had the same thought on this (and no — they were not all caucusing for Romanoff last night.  Some were Bennet supporters who were really shocked by him losing the caucus).

          The points I bring up later in the diary are all things we discussed — the shock that Bennet could have this massive machine behind him and still lose, that the Bennet camp views Andrew merely as an annoyance (and yet lost to him), and the rest.

          That help?

          MADCO-

          Had Bennet not just brought out the president, dumped some obscene amount of resources into the caucus, had the OFA working on their behalf, and such, I might agree with you about it not being a disaster for them.  I just don’t get how you can look at everything Bennet had going for him and not think that it’s an embarrassing loss.

          1. Sorry, but it’s true.

            No one who had any experience with the caucus process expected Bennet to win – in fact, Romanoff was expected to win by virtually everyone, in and outside of Colorado. What’s more, Romanoff was expected to win by a larger margin than he did last night, with folks predicting he’d get at least 60%.

            By the way, some of the derision you’re getting is because on the one hand, you claim to have been following the debate here regularly, but on the other hand, you’re claiming ignorance about some pretty basic facts.

            Both things cannot be true.

            1. If you look at monday’s post about the PPP primary match up, there are plenty of statements about how well Bennet was going to do.  

              Peacemonger talked about a large quiet contingent of support that was supposed to come from 08 first time caucus goers

              Davidhi808 said the Bennet campaign had been working their ass off, etc

              So I will ask the question again: if there was all this extra support and the Bennet campaign was working so hard, how can anyone justify saying Bennet has democratic support and/or is running a good campaign after losing the overall percentage and the majority of counties.

              Either the Bennet campaign (along with the OFA/Party machine) is incompetent, or Bennet just isn’t an appealing candidate to democrats.

              Shouldn’t the question be why a sitting senator can’t win with his own party’s base?

              A loss is a loss kids.  Doesn’t matter if it’s by 1 point or 30.  That’s going to be especially true in November.  If Bennet is the nominee and loses, is Craig Hughes going to put out another email saying that Michael did so well against a machine even though he won’t be returning to the senate?  Most ridiculous rhetoric ever.

              1. But, seriously, what’s the point? I clearly spelled out why last night’s results weren’t a disaster for Bennet, and your response was a reiteration of your original thesis.

                Look, no offense, but you’re clearly not interested in engaging in a productive dialogue here. What you’re seeking is validation of your belief that last night’s caucus results were a stunning disaster for Bennet – so disastrous, in fact, that not only should Bennet resign from the Senate by this weekend, if not earlier, but President Obama should step down as well, or at least strongly consider it.

                As others know, I’m interested in going back and forth, but this is tiresome. I’m sure that you can find other people to buttress your validation.

                1. I specifically state that it would be over the top to say that it’s so bad that Bennet should drop out.  A lot of people on here have spent a lot of time talking about how terrible Andrew’s campaign is/was/will be/whatever

                  Here we have good proof that one (or more) of the following is true:

                  1) The Romanoff campaign is actually a good operation and was able to run an effective caucus strategy

                  2) The Bennet campaign is actually running a really bad campaign and despite the heavy hitting resources they brought in they still couldn’t beat a guy who raised a fraction of the money he did

                  3) Bennet is just an unappealing candidate

                  All signs are pointing against Bennet.  You can talk about expectations or whatever, but if a sitting senator, with the help of the president and OFA, can’t beat a guy who you attack as running a bad campaign, then as democrats we really need to consider if that senator is competent to run against the republicans.

                  1. .

                    Dems ought to be questioning how well Bennet can do against Doug “Dayhorse” Campbell of the American Constitution Party.  

                    Selecting him as your standard-bearer makes this a race for 2nd place, conceding the victory to Norton.

                    .

                  2. You say you want to have a conversation. But then you frame it in a way that allows no conversation. The conversation must be about how disastrous this was for he Bennet campaign or no conversation. Conclsuion stated as part of the opening premise. No “conversation” is possible without accepting the premise.

                    So you want to talk about how this was disastrous for Bennet. It wasn’t.

                    I understand, you and your D friends thought so. Doesn’t make it so.

                    You go on and say we “can talk about expectations or whatever” but you clearly do not believe expectations have anything to do with a reasonable assessment of the results.

                    Let’s look at an example and see how “expectations” can have everything to do with meaningful evaluation of the results.

                    What if- and I’m just spit balling here – Romanoff had been appointed to fill the vacancy and Bennet had decided to challenge him in a primary. Clearly, the conversation would have been very different.

                    First, the Romanoff supporters would not have been complaining about the appointment process. But the expectation for caucus would have been very, very different.

                    Of course expectations matter. The caucus is a poll of 22,000 D’s. A poll Romanoff “won”. But it’s still just a  poll.

                    And expecations last Fall were that Bennet might get so beat that he’d be forced to gasp petition on to the ballot. Well, we won’t know for several weeks but it appears there will be no petitioning on for Bennet or Romanoff.  (Caucus is a poll – and doesn’t “decide” anything.  I’ll bet right now that the delegate count will be tighter than the 8point polling spread.)

                    Now- which is it:

                    Money and all those endorsements do not matter because it’s all about “the people” (Team Romanoff’s message the past few months)

                    or

                    Money and all those endorsements should have mattered but Bennet was just too weak.

                    (Team Romanoff’s message now)

                    1. The message is the same in both your comments MADCO.  Apparently all of Bennet’s money and influence isn’t enough to sway the democratic base.  Bennet had all the advantages, but still lost. No matter how you look at it, it’s really bad for him.

                    2. Are money and endorsements important or meaningless?

                      You wrote “Bennet had all the advantages” implying that money and endorsemetns are all the advantages.  How is that the same as the Romanoff message for the last six months that money and endorsements don’t matter?

                    3. Not all Romanoff supporters are alike. And some of us, me specifically, believe that we will know by sometime late on election day how this will turn out. Talk is cheap, as you know.

                      I believe that money and endorsements do matter because I think I understand “politics as entertainment”. It’s just that whether money and endorsements are a plus or a minus is a question I don’t think anyone can accurately predict an answer to at this early juncture.

                      I continue to believe that any pundit who sits too heavily on past political paradigms is likely to be picking their butt up off the floor after election day, because the political tide may jerk that stool right out from under them.

                      As usual, I will say that I could be completely wrong about this, but I never seen this much class anger in 38 years of party politics…from BOTH sides of the aisle. It is fascinating, really.

                    6. I agree – sometime in early Aug we’llhave a primary winner.

                      Then a few weeks later we’ll a general winner.

                      “…whether money and endorsements are a plus or a minus…”

                      Would you agree, however, that having the ability to budget for staff and significant media is preferable?

                      Do we have perfect candidates? Hardly ever and definitely not this time.

                      I, for example, wish Bennet would have spent a couple of years on active duty.  All the Kennedy brothers did. And Reagan, Carter, Elvis,and many, many more.

  4. Three months ago the Romanoff team was assuming he would get over 70% and Bennet would have to petition on. The fact that Bennet pulled within 7% was a very good showing in the part of the process where Romanoff has his greatest advantage.

    1. I don’t remember the Romanoff campaign saying that at all.  I remember some Bennet supporters saying that to set expectations really high.

    2. And Romanoff is ahead of Bennet in the polls.  When will the spin stop? When will BennetPols.com stop hurting Democrats’ chances and get behind the candidate that has a chance to win in the general?

      That candidate is Romanoff of course.  

  5. out of eight Democrats. I spoke on Andrews’ behalf and had nothing unkind to say about Bennet. Still, I was greeted with hostility by the Bennet supporters as though I were some kind of subversive. I found two things particularly interesting.

    One lady said she was voting for Bennet because “I saw him speaking on the floor of the Senate and just fell in love.” Another said she was voting for Bennet because he used to work with her cousin. One gentleman said he was voting for Bennet because Bennet hadn’t had enough time to prove himself.

    The rest seemed to agree that they supported him because he had the best chance of winning because…he had the most money. The issue over campaign contributions seemed not to matter.

    The other interesting thing is that none of them were willing to go to the county assembly to support their man. I am the only delegate from my precinct. Not a lot of passion from the Bennetistas there assembled.

    The problem is…Big Money politics is a self-perpetuating game. It will not arrange its’ own demise. How can you say that you are opposed to corporate dominance of the political process and then vote for your candidate BECAUSE he is the one with all the corporate cash? Bewildering.

    I said months ago that populism of the Huey Long variety could easily be the defining factor in this race. I still believe that in order to pry our goverment away from the big money boys, we must stop voting for people who take their money. Wouldn’t it be interesting if this race turns out to be Romanoff vs. Buck?

    1. Whether or not you like the candidates (and it’s hard to imagine liking both), Romanoff and Buck are both running on a populist message against machine politics.  If the wave of anger continues, I think it’s possible that both will win their respective primaries.  Obviously it’s way too early to say what will happen, but yesterday made it clear that people were writing off both Buck and Romanoff too quickly.

    2. The only hostility was a Romanoff supporter against Bennet. The Romanoff supporters talked a lot about how Andrew deserved the seat while the Bennet supporters discussed what Michael has accomplished as a Senator.

      We had no trouble getting Bennet delegates.

      1. You don’t live in the crazy, topsy turvy world of Mesa County politics. It is…um,…different over here. Something in the water, I guess.

        I will continue to believe that the public backlash against corporatism will be a major factor here. Of course, I may be wrong, but I recall a time when the accusation of buying an election could actually cost you an election.

        Jack Eckerd (Eckerd Drugs) was a successful Republican businessman in Florida who ran for governor. His opponent made Jacks’ wealth and the fact that he spent 1.1 million of his own dollars (quite a bit in 1972) on the campaign. He lost, and the analysts at the time credited his opponents’ victory to public disapproval of that expenditure.

        The public attitude seems to be very hostile right now to Big Money. Will it carry Romanoff, Buck, etc. to victory? Only time will tell…but I am awfully curious to see how Sen. Bennet handles the current effort to reform the financial sector. It will be difficult, I think, for him to hide his cards until after the primary on this issue.

        This race is far from over.

        1. I forgot to mention the ironic thing about that story. On the election day when Mr. Eckerd lost the election, his companies’ stock went up 50 cents a share. He held 2.5 million shares and thus made up his personal contribution in less than one day.

          1. Folks in Mesa County seem to like politicians who are well funded. Old habits, I guess.

            Romanoff supporters have little to concern them here. Mesa County will not swing this election, even if Sen. Bennet gets 90%.

  6. .

    1.3.4 “A Senator must be … a citizen of the United States for 9 years …”

    Bennet does not meet this requirement.  Up until just 7 years ago he was a multinational corporation.

    .

    2. These are my sentiments exactly. And after hearing that school teacher talk at my caucus it has convinced me that Bennet the BBB is not for the living, breathing citizens of Colorado.  

    3. He still is a multinational corporation. It’s just that he has full citizenship rights now under the Supreme Republican Court decision now being drafted by Sammy Alito. Hear ye, hear ye! Oye vey!

      1. I recently learned Baron X is from the Titled Nobility wing of the Republican Party and am outraged he is fomenting strife within the harmonious Democratic Party! I want to know if POLS HAS A POLICY about this kind of thing? I demand an investigation into

        — UPDATE Someone informed me via email that Barron’s comment was critical of Senator Bennet, so please disregard the above. Go on about your day and patiently await my next communication. Thank you.

        1. Strictly speaking, that’s probably a lie too. There are some who are demonstrably more pathetic. Is Pols ever going to ban that guy?

          (BTW, I heard from a source that Barron “X” is from the Algebraic wing of the Republican Party, so there’s definitely some unknown quantities at work here.)

    5. I suppose if BennetINC wins the nomination, you’ll start a bunch of frivolous lawsuits in hopes of getting AR appointed to the senate seat he rightly deserves.

      1. I believe that they do disagree. They endorsed Sen Bennet.

        Seriously, Andrew should have challenged the man for whom he holds the most antipathy: Gov. Ritter. He would then have been the presumptive nominee.

  7. That is the ability most lacking in these endless conversations about whose campaign is in trouble and why he should drop out now rather than embarrass himself further.

    In other words, what is most lacking in these circle-jerks is intellectual integrity. (Obviously, there are really only a few posters to whom this applies. The rest have my apologies. But singalling people out is even more hopeless than just stating the obvious in generic terms).

    Let’s pretend, for the purposes of argument, that both sides are equally culpable in this error. And let’s just reduce the two candidates to X and Y, without specifying which is which.

    Those who favor X and oppose Y seem incessantly to dissern no evidence supporting any contention that Y has any merit as a human being or a candidate or any hope of winning either the primary or the general, while all evidence supports the conclusion that only X has any merit as a human being and candidate, and only X has any hope of winning both the primary and the general. And vice versa.

    Really? Is anyone supposed to buy that? Is anyone stupid enough to believe that reality is so devoid of nuance?

    Here’s a lesson to all those who commit this error thinking they are doing anything other than making noise: If you want to persuade anyone of anything, you need to establish some credibility. And to establish some credibility, you need to argue against your interests from time to time.

    It’s called “counterargument”. If you want to be effective, you have to make the best possible argument against your own position, and then demonstrate why it fails.

    Okay? We still have months left of this nonsense. Can we at least make it interesting? (And not in the pathetic, painful-to-watch, human train-wreck sense that it has been up until now).

        1. …that you’re selling yourself in autographed, recyclable 100-lb paper bags in the Organic Gardening section of Loew’s this spring?

          How Green Was My Valley

          In Far South Jeffco

          Bloviated Like No Other

          He Just Had to Go and Go and Go.

          1. I’ll leave the irrational belligerence and intolerance of those who don’t march in lockstep with your dogmatic certainties to you and Sharon. Of course, I regret having wasted a morning of my life treating you as if you were anything other than what you show yourself to be here. My mistake. Not one many others who post or lurk here would ever make, nor one I would ever make again.

            1. I too spent some time treating JO like a lady — I even left a tip on the nightstand in the morning — but I just felt dirty afterwards, no matter how I scrubbed. I’m not making that mistake again either.

              1. One often feels “dirty afterwards” when you have made a cheap and uninformed leap of faith. The only problem you are having is drawing the wrong conclusion from your hangover.  

                But I’m not surprised about you blaming the woman for your indiscretions.  It’s a common fault in our society to blame the victim and you appear to have bought into that dogma.  

                 

                1. And what makes you think he’s a woman? Strange that you would refer to “uninformed leaps of faith,” and then assume the gender of a poster whose gender is not known to you. And what leap of faith, regarding candidates, has RedGreen made? Last I checked, he/she was undecided, and (correctly) chastised me for having ever assumed otherwise.

                  Your position boils down to this: Bennet takes money from financial interests, voted for cramdown, is a bad person, and therefore we should all support Romanoff. Those are the twenty words to which all of your posts are reducible, if we don’t include the insults, attacks, whining, and exploitation of a supposed personal loss (every two months) to trick people more decent than you into treating you more kindly than you deserve.

                  While you hate others for disagreeing with you, no one cares that you disagree with them. The people I worked with in the state legislature support Romanoff, and I respect and admire those people greatly. What people resent is the combination of utterly repulsive traits described above, polluting a public forum and diminishing its value as a place where reasonable people can have a rational discussion about matters of public interest.

                  Most posters, wisely, ignore you, because you employ the strategy of being unstable and vindictive enough that the price of not ignoring you is too high to pay, while any potential benefits are pre-empted by your inability to hear or understand anything that takes place outside of your own head.

                  Yes, I know, you, or JO, will come back with some random insult, some random attack, that again has nothing to do with anything. Fine. As you wish. But you’ll win neither arguments nor respect by doing so.

                2. And revealing something else about his lack of knowledge without realizing it. Mr. Faux Pomposity will know what I mean.

                  Meantime, I am crushed…crushed, I tell you…oh where is my hankie?

  8. I should make it clear to everyone that when it comes to the U.S. Senate nomination in Colorado in 2010, I’m undecided.

    OK, so Michael Bennet accepts vast sums from not only PACs, like Safeway, but also individuals in NYC and DC, whose identification on MB’s FEC campaign donation page suggest his contributors either work on Wall Street or K Street.

    But I’m undecided.

    OK, so Michael Bennet uses his PAC funds to buy a television commercial in which he promises to go back to DC and do two things as a matter of priority: insist on a Congressional pay raise and demand that Congress drop its health insurance. His ideas, not mine, of what’s important to get done.

    But I’m undecided.

    OK, he was appointed to the United States Senate as the very first office subject to election which he had ever held, and appointed by a governor who (a) didn’t think he could be reelected, and (b) wracked up a startling anti-labor record in his one and only term.

    But I’m undecided.

    HOWEVER, if anyone points out any of the facts about Bennet,

    If anyone suggests that his “accomplishments” amount to PR gestures, like circulating letters that have no impact on anything except the expenditure of Senate stationery,

    IF anyone questions whether a man beholden to corporate interests might not be the ideal Democratic candidate…

    IF any of these should happen, then I’ll react by rushing out and endorsing–Bennet!

    Stand by until I make my decision. (But, for health reasons, don’t hold your breath.)

    1. Why are you so bothered, or perhaps just surprised, that any other voter would choose to view the facts differently from you?

      Isn’t the whole point of having a primary so that registered D’s may choose?  

      23,000 of us did choose earlier this week.

      Why would you find it anything other than expected and in fact the whole point of the “choosing” process that voters choose not only their candidate but also choose their reasons to choose that candidate?

      I don’t find your posts persuasive or informative.  But you seem to be frustrated that I and others still support Bennet. Worse, you conclude I must be an idiot, or at least gullible. Odd.

      Someone else suggested that you and other similar posters could be R support just posting here to stir up the D’s. Why should I believe that’s not true since you think only you have a good way to view the facts and to thereby choose which candidate to support or oppose?  

    2. called for a Congressional pay freeze, not raise (who on earth would make a commercial announcing that they are going to go to Congress and fight for a Congressional pay raise?). Though I support Bennet, that commercial made me groan, for the exact same reason that most of your arguments make me groan: They’re not arguments about public policy, or who is most likely to advance good public policies.

      I’ve talked with Michael, and with his wife, Susan Daggett, on several occasions. Though they may have cleverly fooled me with their life-long deception in anticipation of this moment, in reality, they both very strongly impress me as extremely bright and sincere people trying to do the best they can to improve the quality of life for the people they share this world with. Period. I resent, on their behalf, these reckless and vindictive characterizations of Michael as some villain because he chose public service, and is doing what candidates realize they have to do in modern electoral contests: Raise lots of money.

      While there are people in government who don’t fit that description (sincere people dedicated to the public good), there are far more who do (even some I philosophically disagree with), and this rhetoric of the evil elites trying to crush the ordinary working folk under their heel is incredibly, and tragically, overblown.

      Yes, there are biases that are less nefarious, based on a candidate’s life experience and past associations, and, yes, those should be taken into account as well. Is the oil-and-gas man going to be an anti-environmentalist? Is the candidate with financial-sector ties going to be too quick to defend the interests of people who have been his friends, and too slow to detect how those interests might be in tension with the public interest?

      These are legitimate questions, that should be addressed by examining stated positions and one’s voting record for evidence of such biases. The vote against cramdown can be legitimately mobilized to make such an argument (though I believe that the argument fails, all things considered).

      But the argument that a candidate’s accepting large contributions from a sector that you think is evil means, ipso facto, that the candidate is evil as well, just makes no sense at all. Candidates become candidates largely by virtue of being willing to submit to the degrading realities of electoral politics, one of which is the absolute imperative to raise money. Big money interests give contributions not only to candidates that they think are “in their pocket,” but also to candidates that they prefer over other candidates (sometimes because the one they favor recognizes, better than his opponent, the ways in which that sector’s interests and the public interest coincide). Big money interests also often give to competing campaigns in a general election, to buy access regardless of who ends up in office (yes, that is the unsavory side of how we finance elections).

      There are aruments to be made on both sides here. There is a reasonable debate to be had.

      1. I wondered what the heck that was about.

        I’m not sure how JO knows PAC funds paid for the commercial, either, since Bennet has raised $4 million from individuals — 15,000 individual donors, in fact.

          1. had his main character (like the author, from Communist Czechoslovakia) in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, think, as he witnessed an angry protest in France, “Don’t they understand that the raised fists are the problem?”

            JO and SH TCO are our two most prominent examples of people who emphatically don’t understand that.

            (In his book The Rise and Decline of Nations, economist Mancur Olsen argued that the tendency in stable, rich, democratic societies, for people to increasingly organize around the fight to get bigger pieces of the pie diverts increasing amounts of productive energy from actually producing the pie, and thus creates a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis countries more focused on the production of wealth, usually developing industrial countries like China today. Obviously, there’s a balance to be struck, but JO and SH TCO are both extreme examples of the tendency, in this case in the context of partisan politics, to divide and conquer oneself, rather than seek the more rational balance that more closely and certainly achieves the desired goals. In American politics, the party that manages not to cannibalize itself is the party that becomes dominant. I only wish that JO and SH TCO could put their cutlery away long enough to ensure that a Democrat wins this senate seat. Frankly, either one of them would best serve the Democratic Party by becoming a Republican).

  9. We’ll see what happens in August. With his belief in the “base” strong, Romanoff spoke of winning gretaer than 70%. He didn’t top 50.

    We’ll see with the President’s victory on healthcare, who is attacked daily by the far left Romanoff supporters (that pretend that the Speaker is progressive), message, and the airways how he’ll do in August.  

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

76 readers online now

Newsletter

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