U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 13, 2010 10:26 PM UTC

Bennet Raised $1.4 Million In 2010 Q1

  • 191 Comments
  • by: redstateblues

(Nuclear explosion added for effect – promoted by Colorado Pols)

From an e-mail blast just sent out by the Bennet for Colorado campaign:

Thanks to an outpouring of grassroots support, we raised more than $1.4 million in this most recent quarter — our most successful quarter to date. Even more importantly, we had nearly 12,000 new donors [rsb emphasis] invest in our campaign to fix a broken Washington during this most recent quarter alone.

Another million dollar quarter from Sen. Bennet. No matter how you shake it, this has got to be making Republicans and the Romanoff campaign at least somewhat concerned. Speaking of the “Grassroots candidate”, no word yet on how much his campaign pulled down in the first quarter, but political junkies won’t have to wait too long–FEC reports are due in less than 48 hours.

Tweet
Share

Comments

191 thoughts on “Bennet Raised $1.4 Million In 2010 Q1”

  1. For everyone else, not just Romanoff.

    I will guess that AR will raise $300K, +/-$50K, and I don’t think that’s enough to wage the kind of campaign he would need to.

  2. I know that number has been tossed around ad nauseam by the AR crowd but saying it over and over don’t make it true. Believe it or not, a lot of us have lived in Colorado for years and are volunteering for the campaign just like you all are volunteering for AR.

    1. I saw the Bennet blast with their fundraising totals…but the FEC doesn’t have CoH up yet.  Do you know what it is for Bennet or are you guessing?

      1. this was meant to be on it’s own.  I know I couldn’t be happier for the Senator as one who hosted one of the “get to know ya’s” and attended the big “have a friend come out and speak on your behalf” with my son.

      2. I also hooked his campaign up with a house party back in February and have been to other house parties where I ran into plenty of long time Arapahoe County Dem volunteers supporting Bennet.  It is a myth that this is all a matter of grassroots vs big moneyed establishment.  43% of the grassroots here in Arapahoe County supported Bennet at the Assembly and that’s too big a chunk to go with the Romanoff camp pure big bad DC guy vs little Colorado guy spin.  

  4. A friend who works for Bennet told me yesterday as he indifferently shrugged at my mention of Norton’s Q1 numbers, “Well, it’s not 1.4 mil.” I laughed. And am now humbled. Bennet can rake it in.

      1. the less dependent on expensive TV ads with the easy to digest messages so necessary to reach low info voters.  Caucus goers were less likely to be swayed between caucus and the  assemblies by TV ads.   A much higher percentage of primary voters will be influenced by ads and a very high percentage of general election voters will be heavily influenced. The money spent was hardly futile and will pack more punch every step of the way.

        1. He has been a professional politician for almost 20 years. He has supporters that back him that aren’t informed on his policies.

          FOr instance, Union members backing him even though he doesn’t back EFCA, and progressives backing him when he’s a DLC man of the year.

          It’s not suprising that he has more state house backers, as he has donated to their campaigns , often with pac money, for years.

          Those are two examples. His ability to get people to suspend disbelief is strong.

          He doesn’t have the congressional delegation.

          Ed Perlmutter’s endorsement of Bennet speaks volumes as he worked directly with AR in the Colorado state house.

          2. Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses but I consider both worthy of the nomination.

            It should be good for the party to have these two highlight Democratic/progressive goals.  It keeps both candidates in the news and helps build an awareness of their personalities.  They should be helping each other make sure that one of them wins in November.  It is the same caucus with the same overall objectives.

            1. Except that Andrew Romanoff has built a campaign platform around smearing Bennet’s reputation. Honestly, the guy is essentially calling Bennet a pawn for evil corporations. Is this in line with your consideration of being worthy of the nomination GG?  

              1. And also agree with the inexplicable suspension of disbelief on various counts that Ray mentions.  That isn’t a matter of ignorance, as with low information voters, but more like denial because they so want to see Andrew as their guy and Bennet as the enemy.  I also  have spoken to a few pols who feel obliged to support Andrew at this stage after all he’s done for them but would be happy to support Bennet and may be relieved when they feel are finally able to do so.

                As we get to lower information voters who aren’t particularly invested in anyone for such complex, gut level reasons, the wall to wall messaging that Bennet can put out will be very, very influential as well as the fact that our President and most of our congressional delegation support Bennet.

                1. I think it is the other way around. There are many party activists that I have spoken to privately who are terrified of coming out and publicly supporting Andrew. This is because the main party machine is backing Bennet.

                  If any party official backs Romanoff there are phone calls made to Pat Waak and county chairs about how “biased” everyone is being. People have been asked for their resignation over supporting Andrew. They put up with this nonsense because of how much they support Andrew in this race. It is MUCH easier to support Michael and have the party machine behind you.

                  I don’t know of anyone who would be wiping their brows with relief because they wouldn’t  “need” to support Andrew anymore. I have not met a single person in all of my Romanoff backing friends that feels obligated in supporting him. They do so happily and with pride.  

                  1. Right…

                    I don’t see Bennet’s camp doing the mud-slinging, bashing, name-calling, booing and otherwise childish things the Romanoff camp is doing.  I have heard countless people tell me how ashamed they are to see Romies stooping so low.

                    Booing Wellington Webb in Denver? Booing Senator Brandon Shaffer in Boulder? Really? Any respect I had for Andrew Romanoff is greatly diminished — he really should have stopped the nastiness and the eating-your-own long ago.

                    Time to grow up, folks.

                    1. Check out the “story” about the Bennet campaign crying fowl about the romanoff campaign putting a few pictures together.  the bennet…i mean pols…folks thought it was important enough to frontpage.

                  2. Tons of Dem Colorado State legislators are openly backing Romanoff including in my own in HD38 and SD26. Joe Rice certainly didn’t look or sound terrified at Arapahoe County Assembly enthusiastically introducing Romanoff. He’ll talk up Andrew to anyone who asks. There were also a few local officials backing him with no apparent fear of consequences.  You don’t know what you’re talking about, Oz, or should I call you the little phony behind the curtain?  

                    1. The majority of the Colorado legislature, Cary Kennedy, and many others openly (and quite happily) endorsed Romanoff directly after he filed his paperwork and announced his intentions to run a primary challenge.

                      There may have been a few isolated incidents of unfounded frustration over party officials personally, rather than professionally, endorsing Romanoff–a few come to mind, I won’t get into them here–but GAPO’s suggestion that there’s some kind of underground Romanoff resistance with people hiding their support in the shadows is just weird.

                  3. Ah, good one.

                    The First Vice Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, Dan Slater, came out for Romanoff and wrote a little diary about it, to boot, as if there was anyone left within the party that didn’t already know he was a Romanoff supporter. He didn’t strike me as terrified. Maybe he’s a fine actor. Who knows.

                    I think if the First Vice Chair can thumb his nose at state party rules and openly endorse a candidate, your argument about intimidation kind of loses its credibility, Oz.  

                    1. I said Party Officials. Elected officials have done whatever they want in this endorsement process without care of how appropriate or inappropriate it may be.

                      Dan Slater is the only Party Official I know of who openly and actively supports Andrew and he was verbally attacked online for doing so. (If there are others who are so open then forgive me for not knowing.) But all I am saying is in MY EXPERIENCE, the party officials that I know are very nervous because they have seen what has happened to others who have “Come out.” So to speak.

                      County Chairs, Vice Chairs etc. are incredibly nervous about coming out in support of Andrew for fear of the retaliation from the main party structure. And god help them if they  actually do anything to help Andrew, then all hell breaks loose.

                      Do any of you remember the email that Pat Waak sent out when this all started? She basically said that you could endorse, but you better not. The email actually included the words, “or else.” But the only people that have problems stem from endorsements are the ones backing Romanoff. If a party official is backing Bennet, no one says anything. It can be scary for people to back the candidate not being supported by the party machine.  

                    2. Romanoff sent out scores of e-mails containing lists of county party officials who have openly endorsed Romanoff.

                      I know you want this campaign to be an insurgent, secret, hidden-in-the-shadows thing, where there are people afraid to say what they truly feel, but it’s just not true.

                    5. Personal attack aside, I meant that be aimed at Bluecat and redstate.

                      So sorry to offend your sensitivities by clicking the wrong reply button.  

                    7. So sorry to think I had offended you.

                      I generally only insult people after I have been offended, happy to see that we aren’t all that way.

                      Glad to know I am helping you to have a lovely day!  

                    9. He’ll be apologizing to you soon enough. He’s sort of a sensitive guy.  

              1. Either Bennet or Romanoff would be better senators than Buck or Norton.  Udall took PAC money for his senate race and the state and the nation are grateful that it wasn’t Bob Schafer casting that vote for health care reform.  Whatever shortcomings Bennet or Romanoff have are trivial compared to the ideological divide between them and Norton or Buck.

                The benefit of this primary to Bennet is that it helps him develop his organization and work on his messaging.  These are important positives for him and will help him in the general.  Romanoff has shown an tenacious ability to get votes when he needs them and an upset win in the primary would propel him into the general.  Both candidates can make a credible case for being our next senator.

                I am a Bennet delegate to the state assembly but would vote for Romanoff in a heartbeat against either Buck or Norton. This is a big seat for Democrats to hold onto and it shouldn’t be compromised with petty sniping.  Both candidates work for me and I hope the Romanoff supporters understand that it is going to take millions of dollars to campaign effectively. They need to chill out on the “money is evil” narrative and focus on the issues and the solutions that their candidate champions.

                1. I get tired of the mud from the other side and then thier whining when refuted. I’ve really have yet to retaliate outside of proving that ROmanoff’s claim to fame for civil rights comes froma 3 month internship when he was 19 or 20.

                  It did anger me when he was telling my best friends’ brother that he was a civil rights lawyer when he hasn’t passed the bar.

                  I won’t retaliate any further. The Republicans  will.I’m not the only person that does opposition research. It’s my own and not paid for nor requested by the Bennet campaign.

                  1. Thanks for your thoughts.  The way I look at it is that I didn’t agree with Salazar and banking reform or Udall and war funding so believing that there is one perfect candidate who is going to vote my agenda every single time is kind of wishful thinking.  Both Romanoff and Bennet are light years ahead of Buck or Norton on civil rights.  The Republicans want to enslave illegal immigrants and sell them off to corporations while denying their kids American citizenship by natural birthright.  It would be a crying shame to let the Republicans grab the seat because we’re bickering with each other over minutia and lose sight of our larger goal which is helping the Obama administration continue to craft policies that fix the mess they inherited and continue to move forward with better solutions to critical issues.  

          3. (And disclaimer, I have always been a huge admirer of Andrew Romanoff, but I don’t support him in this primary.)

            David Sirota and Ed Schulz keep touting him as the progressive choice; he ain’t.

            Mario Solis Marich acts like he’s the second coming, but Andrew was a leader of the disastrous special session that passed a host of anti-immigrant measures, while Bennet is a sponsor of the DREAM Act.

            I guess we Dems are pretty good at the big lie, too.

            1. Ed  is a capitlaist.I dont understand Mario unless that’s what he’s been told to do.

              Sirota is close to a neo marxist in reality. You should hear him fawn about Noam Chomsky.

              Chomsky is a known neo-marxist and anti-Israeli advocate.

              When things don’t make sense, then probably there are reasons we don’t know about.

        2. They may have swayed by Andrew’s speech, or that Morgan buttoned holed them while we were in the count.

          It ran really well. AS I told a Romomanoff supporter that was counting(I was assigned to verify) that thanked me for being relaxed, I don’t hate AR.I think he tells half truths and spins. I don’t like the smear campagin tactics.

          In the final analysis, it din’t matter. We made the threshold, so I didn’t see any reason to complain about a thing.

      2. I love how people on Pols are so quick to jump on one rasmussen poll after dismissing the series of polls showing Romanoff’s support.

        It’s one poll…from a company that most people on here dismiss as worthless.  Apparently that changes when it supports your guy.

        1. The only polls we pay attention to are the ones that come out after the candidates have all been up on TV. Prior to that, most voters don’t know a Bennet from a bonnet, let alone asking them to choose between Bennet and someone else. They’re just not paying attention to politics yet.

          1. Pols after TV?  I love how it changes continually.  One day it’s that all Rasmussen pols are crap, then you talk about how when Bennet spliced together two gen election pols it shows how he is clearly ahead, and now you say that no polls matter until after TV ads.  Gotta love you guys for trying, but a your bias is just sad at some point.

            1. You obviously don’t understand campaigning in today’s world. If you don’t have TV you can’t win. The recent poll backs that point.  

            2. is, was, will be, that polls will matter more later when likely voters are more engaged.

              Rassmussen is a weak methodology – but not completely  useless. the funny thing – the thing you should love – is how the AR campaign touted Rassmusen before the caucus- and now wants everyone to ignore it.

              1. which they apparently want to ignore, is that they continually change on when they think which polls matter.  Before they discounted Rasmussen anytime anyplace.

                As it has been said elsewhere on here, one poll is often an outlier — especially rasmussen.  The Romanoff campaign listed a string of rasmussen polls that all showed growing support, in addition to another agency.  If Bennet continues to gain in pols for the next month or two, I’ll yield about Bennet showing strength — but not with one.

                Did Romanoff use the poll for fundraising?  Of course he did.  That’s smart.  Just like Bennet claimed losing the caucus was somehow a great victory.

                1. The point of the caucus/assemblies is for candidates to make the ballot in the primary. The threshold for making the ballot is 30%. Winning more than 40%  does that.

          1. as I said above — there is a large string of polls from various sources showing Romanoff ahead, and one Rasmussen showing Bennet better.  You may think Rasmussen is unreliable (and they may be), but my beef is really with COPols dismissing all of them except the one that shows Bennet doing well.  I guess everything else was somehow not important

            2. No there aren’t. There have been a handful of polls and the results have been mixed. The latest Ras poll isn’t the only one that showed Bennet doing better against the Republicans than Romanoff. But if the Romanoff campaign argues the Rasmussen polls are meaningful, they can’t suddenly turn around and say they’re not.

        3. Stop being biased towards Bennet. There were three Rasmussen polls that had Andrew ahead and only one that put him behind. This is definitely an outlier!

          The bomb at the top resembles Bennet’s campaign as they petition on to the ballot. It is weakness, even if they do take part in the assemblies. WEAK.

          Also, who cares about Rasmussen polls? Right? Its not like Andrews campaign cares about some Rasmuss…..

          1. When Bennet’s campaign finishes it’s petition and has tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pledged supporters from all corners of the state, it will not be a sign of weakness. It will be a sign of strength. He’s taking a page from the Obama campaign handbook. Get as many pledges of support and make sure to record their contact info. They will be useful volunteers come election time!

            It’s good to see one of the candidates knows how to run a state-wide campaign. Not just one in a safe house district…

    2. everyone who goes to caucus/assemblies gives AR a standing ovation every time he says a few words.

      What’s the deal with everyone so focused on assemblies and delegates anyway? As far as I can tell, the only votes that really matter are the ones on August 10th.

      1. but it’s so fascinating that all these people give him a standing ovation every time he says a few words will (or should) be going out and running their mouths to their fellow democrats.

        Meanwhile Bennet’s teevee sucks balls.

        What will happen???

  7. I had just posted this from one thread back but it seemed appropriate here as we’re talking about money. (Sorry about the double comments).

    As I asked in an earlier thread, how much does a senate candidate need to raise to be healthy as a rule of thumb? – and somebody mentioned it would take about two million.

    Having said that, I am cuious about how much COH Romanoff has.

    So for me the changing of staff is still inside baseball (it is important) but only we care.  I still think there is plenty of support out there for both candidates.

    It looks like we’ll know soon how much Romanoff raised and his COH.

    But 1.4 is mucho money.

    1. The general rule of thumb in a major statewide race is that you should reserve at least 80% of the money you raise for television advertising. For a decent statewide network TV buy, you’re going to need at least $1 million for ads, and realistically a lot more.

      So it’s not just about how much money you need to raise in total, because some of that has to be spent on staffers, office space, telephones, etc. The question isn’t how much money you need to be “healthy,” but how much you need to be able to win.

      For example, Romanoff could keep running a campaign with $300-400k raised each quarter, but that wouldn’t leave him with much money to go up on TV.

      Does that help?

      1. We’d say any Senate candidate with a hope of winning would need to have a minimum of $1.5 to $2 million COH heading into July, the month that the TV ads will really start getting heavy.

      2. We also need to keep in mind that whoever comes out of the primaries will be likely to receive money from both the other candidate’s supporters, the party and independent expenditures as well to boost TV money.

      1. But seriously – “These people are spending money they don’t have!”

        Uh, dude – that’s you spending money we don’t have, eh?

        Let me know if he wants some good ideas for future commercials.

        🙂

      2. I support AR, but would certainly vote for Bennet.  Bennet’s tv commercials are appalling….just appalling…..

        1) Bennet  proposes bizarre restrictions on Congress which don’t have any meaning at all…..which anyone who graduated 8 grade civics in Colorado would know…

        2) The Washington DC vs. Washington County is STUPID…because Bennet, of course, was born in DC….and he looks totally out of place.  The commercial just invites retaliation…..bennet is a part of exactly what he is criticizing…

        AFter it was announced that Manual HS was being closed, Bennet proposed a walk through the Manual HS neighborhood with Manual kids to pick up trash….you know, so the bright white boy could show the little colored kids how to be clean…..whenever I see his ads, that is what am reminded of….

        2. Since when is Romanoff more lefty than Bennet?  When did the DLC become a lefty organization?  What lefty legislation is part of his record as a state legislator?  I just don’t get the Romanoff on the left thing at all.

    2. They are working. it Ramussen ahs Bennet down by 4, then more centrist will have a dead heat.

      Norton on the other hand has a real problem. She spent a lot on ads. Buck raised only 40k in the 4th q, and she barely beat him.

  9. was raised INSIDE of Colorado?

    I would bet the MAJORITY of Bennets cash came from a street named Wall. on an island named Manhattan.

    Bennet MUST be elected to keep banking interests unregulated don’t ya Know…



    the “Manhattan project” produced a Nuclear explosion too.

      1. a jab at Bennet. (sue me to bankruptcy)

        yet it is Bennet’s failure to vote for meaningful Bankruptcy reform and is continual usage of “cramdown” that infuriates Real Dems.

        Really it is Bennet’s coziness to wall street that has him losing to Romanoff… whats that twice now?

        So Now Bennet is petitioning to be on the ballot regardless of his potential loss at the primary.

        I am proud to point these things out.  

        1. You mean neo marxists that are as offensive in their assault on our democracy as the Tea Party? (example:Mr.Sirota who idolizes Noam Chomsky (a well known neo-Marxist, and anti-Israeli advocate)

            1. We have a Republic in which contract law and private property are the basis of social interaction. Neither the radical left, nor radical right wants it to stay that way.

              Perhaps we need 4 parties Dems, Reps, Tea party, and whatever the left wing of the Dem party wants to call itself.

          1. You never bothered to tell me if you want my vote.

            I’ll be seeing Andrew later this week.  Should I ask him if assholes like you speak for him?

            You’ve got one vote on the line here.  Let’s see if you can earn it.

            It would be the shits to lose a primary by one vote and have it be your fucking fault.

            1. I just want to hear from Froward if he thinks that insulting people for not being “Real Dems” is a way to win the primary vote by vote.

              I haven’t made up my mind who to vote for.  But every time I read shit like that, I get closer to a decision.

              1. whom you vote for is up to you. if you Trust Bennet to vote to help the middle class then By all means Vote for him.

                yet as Bennet has shown he is easily swayed by moneyed interests (the bankruptcy Bill he voted against that would have kept untold thousands in their homes is but one example.) You know that “cramdown” bill that would have forced Banks to actually help those struggling to keep their homes.

                or If you are like me and simply trust Romanoff to do for the middle class. Then do like the rest of us. Vote For Romanoff.

                    3. it is no use trying to explain it…

                      you still wont get it.

                      motr, ralphe…

                      Glad I interrupt your delusions of adequacy.

                    5. If Froward isn’t Sharon he/she/it is no smarter. Nothing like being silly yet humorless at the same time. Wonder of Froward voted for Nader in 2000? Wonder if “Froward” was supposed to be “Forward”?  Like “rouge” is supposed to be “rogue”?

                3. cramdown wwas an amendment to the bill that failed as I recall. I belive that he voted for the actual bill.

                  Cramdown is a salacious argument. If contract law is to be abolished then we might as well be communists.

                  Bennet’s suggestion is to extend the notes to 40 years rather 30 (thus lowering the payment.)

                  Either way, Romanoff people will attaack him.

        3. also don’t appreciate Romanoff’s elitist attitude – that this was his Senate seat that he was entitled to because he is the career politician. Also many real Dems don’t consider Romanoff to be a true progressive due to his deep involvement in the DLC.  

          1. Romanoff is NOT an elitist, that gave me a great chuckle. Andrew Romanoff is one of the most humble and sincere people I have ever known.

            It is not his Senate seat until he wins it. I don’t think wanting to give people a chance to vote for their elected official is elitist or makes him a career politician.

            All this nonsense about “Real Dems” is really ridiculous. I am a Romanoff supporter who considers myself a Real Dem. And all of my Bennet friends (granted there are not a great many) are Real Dems as well. The beauty of our party is the ability to accept many different people with many different viewpoints. It is this spirit of acceptance and encouraged dissent that drew me to the party in the first place.  

        4. first- you’re an idiot.

          second- Bennet voted for bankruptcy reform. Just not with cramdown*.

          third – Bennet voted for the credit card reform.

          fourth – the caucus/assemblies are not the “primary”. They are the caucus and assemblies.  The primary is a separate event that will happen later this summer. And the only meaningful impact the caucus and assemblies have on the primary is the order of the candidates on the ballot. Maybe there’s a few voters who couldn’t find their candidate unless he’s on the top line – but I doubt it. Maybe there’s a few voters who only vote the top line, but I doubt it matters much to anyone who votes.

          *Do you even understand cramdown? Or is it just the talking point you’ve fallen for?  Explain the idea and the Senator’s reasons for opposing it and I’ll retract #1. Oh, also that ridiculous claim that “provide for the general welfare” somehow requires single payer health care. Or whatever.  

          1. I’m more concerned with his pattern of actions.  All I know is that the Denver zip code that has the highest foreclosures in the state needed the relief that cramdown would bring.  I don’t give a damn what his reasons were…where was his alternative for relief?

            His half-baked excuse for voting no on cramdown is that he didn’t think bankruptcy court was the solution.  It begs the question, “well, what IS the solution, then”?  He never gets to that part.

            1. His reasoning on cramdown was factually correct – and it was more than just bankruptcy is not the best solution.

              More to the point –

              If he had voted for cramdown, it still would have failed.  It missed by at least 6 votes.  

              Senator Bennet could have voted for single payer – it would have failed. He could vote for peace in Middle East, he could vote for anything.  One vote is not always the difference.

              As to a better solution to avoid foreclosure- Which zip code would that be?   How may of those foreclosures resulted from anything temporary  or happened to households that went bankrupt and could have saved their home but for the lack of cramdown?

              I’ve seen data- Denver and elsewhere – that shows  cramdown wouldn’t have saved many homes that wouldn’t have been lost anyway. Do you have different data?  How many foreclosures in that zip code or elsewhere would have been saved if Senator Durbin could have rounded up the votes?

              That said- I would have preferred cramdown pass and  I would have preferred that Senator Bennet would have voted yes or offered a better alternative before voting no.

              And it was one vote. One time.

              Is that really the only policy difference with Senator Bennet?  

              1. Here’s a fresh one: http://www.opencongress.org/vo…

                So seniors, disabled, vets, etc. aren’t going to get a COLA increase this year, so Sen. Bernie Sanders introduces an amendment to give a one-time payment of $250 to folks like this.

                Guess who votes with the Repubs to kill it.

                You guessed it.

                Senator Bennet.

                Senator Bennet doesn’t like poor people.

                1. It was nowhere near 60 votes to pass.

                  And at least a dozen D’s voted no, including Mark Udall.

                  Oh, and you know who was in favor of this- the banking lobby.

                  1. To vote the right way, regardless of how the caucus is voting.  This is what sets a legislator’s track record with the public.  It’s a matter of principle that informs the voter whether to support you or not.

                    1. IIRC there were at least two – and Bennet voted yes when it was paid for and then voted no when it wasn’t.

                      To which do you refer?

      2. Anytime Bennet people don’t have anything to say to valid arguments made by Romanoff supporters you do exactly this.

        Call the other side negative campaigners and then call them names.

        2. And from the indentation, I think you were responding to me.

          I am not a Bennet supporter.  I’m not even a D. I am still trying to make up my mind who to vote for in the Primary if I declare as a D.  Since Froward told me my vote doesn’t matter, the short list is getting shorter.  Quickly.

        3. I’d strongly suggest to you Lionel, and all other anonymous Romanoff backers on the blogs to back off or we won’t support you and he will lose. Romanoff has to start trying to gain our support now, not in August. August will be too late to heal party divisions. If he keeps up the negative mudslinging then he alone will be responsible for loss of the seat,his career will be over, and he will leave Colorado to his families NGO which is waiting in the wings at 6 figures

          1. So you are threatening to not support Romanoff because of some bloggers? That doesn’t exactly reek of a desire for party unity does it?

            We could very easily do the same thing and threaten to not support Bennet over the BS he pulled in DPS, or his theoretical hand job to the banking industry, or even his intimidation tactics and millions taken in PAC money.

            But I don’t. If, come August, he is the party’s nominee, I will not only pledge to vote for him, but I will canvass, make phone calls and vocally support him.

            Why can you not make the same pledge? Or are you just lying when you say you want unity? Not calling you a liar necessarily, but just trying to figure this one out.

    4. Historically – and TheDeminator can speak to this, as he’s a top fundraiser – there aren’t enough donors within the state to properly fund a federal campaign.

      It’s not just Colorado – you could say the same about North Dakota or Indiana.  

      1. why we have to keep having this conversation. This point has been made to death and back (and I do appreciate you taking the time to answer this question for the 90th time).

        I just think some folks like Froward really don’t have a single clue about politics because this isn’t rocket science stuff here and it’s been asked and answered enough times by now that even the most unsavvy and naivest blogger on this site should get the point.

        1. Part of it is because people who contribute do tend to be easier gets as volunteers, so it can serve as a very rough shorthand to gauge local support. Given the large numbers needed for statewide campaigns, though, it’s well-nigh impossible to keep one’s fundraising base entirely local.

          This isn’t a problem limited to small and medium states, either. In California, for example, which is one of the few states where you could keep your fundraising instate, theoretically, the high cost of TV forces candidates to go outside – something that will really be magnified by Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial campaign, who’s already hit the $60 million level with seven months to go.  

          1. Sen Benent;s percentage is not out of line with Sen. Udalls nor former Sen. now Sec.  Salazar.

            Many state house candidates raise money out of state. Many state house members move here from out of state.

            We are the United States of Anerica as the President said at the 2004 convention in Boston.

            .

  10. So Bennet raised another 1.4mil, lost the caucus, continues to lose more over the course of the assemblies, and eventually decided to petition onto the ballot (for which it seems like they are using a 3rd party company and not their own staff).  They are running bad TV ads (which even their supporters on here have said were poor quality).

    Meanwhile Romanoff his firmed up his staff, build a grassroots army, and is getting all the press about momentum.  Bennet is going to need the cash.

        2. a lot of the dems up there was mad that apparently he didn’t show up to some meet and greet he had after the filming…guess that’s why in “this washington” they voted overwhelmingly for Romanoff at the assembly.

          1. We’ve been missing you of late. Couldn’t find a single one of you grassroots supporters when the latest Rasmussen poll came out. Nice to see you back.

              1. Shall I repost the email his campaign sent out to raise money, touting his lead in the Rasmussen poll?

                Again, my comment was sarcasm. You AR supporters aren’t all that bright, are ya?

                1. …that right-leaning poll, when now it’s been announced that Jane Norton is petitioning on the ballot too.  Seems like they’re just as weak, no matter what Rasmussen says.

            2. …and I’ll pretend you were serious.  Sorry I was busy at my assembly casting my vote for Romanoff…along with the vast majority of the democratic base.

              I love that you are one of the “only poll that matters is election day” kind of people…you might notice that a lot of dems have been voting in the caucuses…and voting for Andrew.

              1. AR didn’t come close to keeping Bennet off the ballot as he crowed in February.

                Hell, you folks were crowing that last week.

                Romonaoff himself argued against primaries and discouraged them while Speaker, but then again he told many people a year ago at this time that he had no desire to run for Senate. I believe that he was neogotiating to be the Lt. Gov with Bill Ritter as he told me himself at Rosha Shana.

                We will see what his numbers are.

                If he can’t get on television then he can’t blame Sen Bennet.  

              2. See you in August. Or in the diary coming up about AR’s fundraising totals for the first quarter. That should be some fun, huh?

                Are you kidding?

                the vast majority of the democratic base.

                The “vast majority of the democratic base” doesn’t even bother to show up for a primary, let alone a county assembly. You’re lucky if you get them to the general.

                You might want to quit while you are behind. RedGreen has already handed you your ass on a platter. Do you really need to have it done multiple times in one night?

                  1. way, way, way over threshold, that voted for Bennet isn’t really basey enough?  Like the 43% of us who went for Bennet in Arapahoe? And I’m betting we’re going to find plenty of friends outside the base.  After all, it’s not like even the average Colorado Dem, much less indies, is what could be described as far left.  

                    And, once again, since Andrew isn’t an iota to the left of Bennet I just don’t get the alleged connection with the progressive base.  Could one of you Romanoff supporters please explain that to me? With actual facts?

                    I mean I get centrists like Joe Rice and Linda Newell, with whom the base is often pissed (who got elected in R districts because they are centrists), going for Andrew in a big way but that’s because it makes so much sense. What with Andrew being a centrist and all, ‘ya know?

    2. It pains me to say it because I think it is at the root of the decay of representative demoncracy, but money talks in politics. Plain and simple, and the Bush judges made that almost challenge proof with their recent decision.It may take a movement to amend the First Amendment to deal with this ludicrous notion that a corporation has the same rights of speech as an individual to restore some semblance of control over campaign financing. But, that effort is for the future.

      . So, raising money is a necessity of running for office..a lot of money. Bennet is only doing what he has to do, and until someone comes up with proof that Senator Bennet’s contributions somehow violate some stricture, these allegations of being in the pocket of Wall Street are right out of the playbook of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. Certainly this battle for the nomination deserves better than distasteful accusations.  

      I think alot of the hostility the AR folks are venting is due to misplaced pride and egos talking. Ritter bypassed the usual Dem Party insiders in choosing Senator Bennet, and now with Ritter a lame duck, all that anger is being misplaced and misdirected at Bennet when he had nothing to do with the process, despite some accusations on some blogs by folks who say they are for AR. So, we have specious allegations that Senator Bennet is a handmaiden to Wall Street when no one has offered one ounce of proof that any position or vote Senator Bennet has made was due to a contribution from a corporation. It is more of the misdirection tactics one sees when issues should be front and center. And on issues, even the AR folks can’t find fault with the positions Senator Bennet has taken. You can most assuredly disagree, but to impugn the motives of the man without proof is repugnant.

      I heard from a few folks who attended the county assembly for Boulder that the AR supporters acted more like Tea Party yahoos with yelling and booing than respectful members representing a candidate. In fact, Brandon Schaffer had to gavel down the crowd at one point to get order due to this kind of behavior. If this is the nature of the grassroots campaign that the AR campaign is trying to develop, it will backfire most assuredly over the summer and into the fall.

      In the meantime, Senator Bennet’s campaign is quietly  developing a citizen base of activists and has had a coordinated staff and message since the beginning, unlike the AR campaign which is now on its third spokesperson. Usually in campaign-speak, that signals internal disagreements and a confusion of message and policies.

      So, AR folks, let’s keep our eyes on the prize..a Democratic Senator this fall, and not get so involved in looking to rectify perceived past slights, or to “send a message to DC incumbents”; that strategy cost us Florida, and gave us Bush. There is still a ton of work that needs doing in DC, and we need every Democratic Senator we can. Let’s not create an opening for Republicans where none is needed.  

      1. I am sure you English mavens will find the typo…should be democracy, not demoncracy. Interesting that the little red line didn’t show up when I was typing it. Ghosts in the machine? ~S~..Sorry for the misspelling.  

      2. I’ll tell you this AR supporter has a big one — that does link to his corporate contributions: cramdown.  Bennet voted to kick people out of their homes and took half a million from the banking industry.  Bought and paid for.  It’s that simple.

        2. Name the vote. Name the piece of legislation. And we can go from there.  Because if it one of these poison pill pieces of legislation where the Republicans stuck in something that was positioning for the fall election, and you had to hold your nose while voting for it, just the cost of doing business in DC. Distasteful practice, but the old saying about legislation and sausage still holds true. It’s naive to pretend otherwise.

          Smearing by innuendo…it’s all it is. AR campaign supporters should aim higher than that.

          By the way, didn’t AR have a PAC when he was in the legislature? You SURE he didn’t take any corporate money? I suspect as AR gets further and further behind in the necessary funds to run a competitive campaign, some of those “corrupt corporate dollars” will start looking pretty good…~S~.  

              1. It would have allowed people who were about to be foreclosed on to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage with a judge.  By voting against it, Bennet removed a great option that would have kept people in their homes.  So yes — he voted to kick people who lost their jobs or are otherwise down on their luck out of their homes.  

                  1. I’ve heard him asked about it.  He claimed that allowing for those renegotiations would have been bad for homeowners as a whole as it would have cost the banking industry money, which they would try and recoup from the broader array of homeowners.

                    It’s kind of like when the health insurance companies want to dump people who get sick — it’s not cost effective and they would prefer that people just pay them money and never have to get treated.

                    Would banks have liked this?  clearly not.  They lobbied against it.  It would have been the right thing to do though.  Personally I think we need to put human decency above profit for big corporations.  It even made sense for the economy – people who are suddenly homeless aren’t exactly productive — they can’t deal with looking for work when they are looking to get a roof over their heads.

                    But yes — I do think it had a lot to do with his contributions.  half a million in banking money at the same time as the vote.  I applaud Udall for his vote.  This was one that really turned me off from Bennet.

                2. Actually, I don’t know if you know this, but I disagree with Bennet on that vote. I think it would have helped a lot of people, but I think your comment was factually incorrect.

                  First of all, you seem to think that his vote on cramdown was an easy one. I think that the yes vote was the easy one, though. He knew he was handing any potential primary opponent a potential campaign talking point. He knew it wasn’t going to sit well with Democrats. However, he voted that way because he felt it was the right thing to do.

                  Whether you disagree or agree with him on that vote, you can’t say that Bennet’s vote was forcing people out of their homes any more than you can say Mark Udall’s vote was keeping them in their homes. The reason for that is very simple–the amendment, like most votes in Harry Reid’s Senate, needs 60 yea votes to pass. Even if Bennet had voted yes, it would have still failed.

                  So yes, I agree that it was a bad vote, but the inflammatory rhetoric is just silly.

                  2. Thanks to all who chose to comment and offer some good information about this subject. I agree that it would have been better to have that option for homeowners; my nephew has had to walk away from his first house because of the sub-prime mess and there was no hammer to force the bank to renegotiate. The thing is, the statistics show that the banks would be much better off to renegotiate with the homeowner and keep them in the house over time than to supposedly cut them loose and have the house empty.

                    I agree; I would have voted along with Senator Udall. But, as RSB stated, neither vote really mattered since Reid had the votes to defeat it. And while some here don’t accept Senator Bennet’s explanation, it is based on a reasonable point of view of the situation. And while some folks here might think accepting funds means you are owned, I guess I haven’t reached that level of reflexive cynicism, and usually require facts before I reach the level of disdain for a politician that some of the RA supporters have expressed here based on ONE vote.  

        3. I do think that you are prone to the power of the cult of a personailty with tendencies towards ending the modified capaitlaism that we live under.

          Read Adorno.

    3. Why does it “seem” that way? The Bennet campaign is on the record saying they’re using staff and volunteers, not a “3rd party company.” Seems like you could benefit from figuring out the facts, not just going on your gut there.

      1. on Pols about a discussion they were having with the firms who did petitioning for one of the republicans.  That’s where it came from.

        If they are really doing it inhouse it can be a valuable tool — I’m curious to see how it works for them.

        Thanks roguestaffer (comment below) on the update.  

        1. Because all I remember are some Romanoff supporters clutching their pearls at the very possibility Bennet would hire a nasty petition-gathering firm, not any suggestion that was ever considered. Because it wasn’t.

          1. So it’s kind of hard for me to find the link, but IIRC, I brought up doing it in house, Dan Willis said it would have to be done by an outside firm, and I responded that just because that’s how it’s been done in the past in CO, doesn’t mean that that’s the way it had to be done, using my experience in other states.  

            1. and it wasn’t what Stryker described. Again, the Bennet campaign never considered hiring an outside firm, much less “the firms who did petitioning for one of the republicans,” as Stryker asserts. They get these talking points and just hang onto them, the facts be damned!

    4. Which is why, when I had the chance to ask the question, I asked point-blank if they were going in-house or hiring an outside firm. I was told they were doing it in-house, then introduced to the field staffers responsible.  

  14. We already knew that.  We also know the biggest problem in Washington is the amount of money flying around.  So is Bennet showing great leadership on fixing that broken part of Washington by accumulating a record amount of money?  It’s like how he fixed the problem of massive too powerful corporations by creating the Regal theater chain.

    No amount of money can give the guy substance.  So far his campaign has been a regurgitation of every shallow campaign cliche yet invented.  When will he start saying something with all that money?

    1. I’d say that’s a great indicator of ground support.  Even if he didn’t have any of his old donors back again, that’s an average donation of just over $100 – not exactly topping off with Wall St. max-dollar donations…

  15. I’d strongly suggest all  anonymous Romanoff backers on the blogs to back off or Bennet  won’t support him should he win the priamry, and he will lose. Romanoff has to start trying to gain our support now, not in August. August will be too late to heal party divisions.

    If he keeps up the negative mudslinging then he alone will be responsible for loss of the seat,his career will be over, and he will leave Colorado to his families NGO which is waiting in the wings at 6 figures

      1. With the threats and innuendo and constant posting about someone misunderstanding whether Romanoff practiced law one summer in the ’80s, Ray has definitely gone over to the other side, figuratively speaking. Everyone needs a vacation after the last month.

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

91 readers online now

Newsletter

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