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
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 23, 2010 11:32 PM UTC
45 Comments
Staff meeting must be over, and they’ve received strict instructions to ignore the sleazy fact of Campanoff hiring a DPS board member to attack Sen. Bennet.
Nothing to see here, move along . . .
I got the Huffington Post and the Colorado Independent to write these stories highlighting how Kincaid has been operating.
And, isn’t Bennet’s treasurer working for the School Board also?
nothing to see there either i suppose.
the article says
hardly worth mentioning.
If you have a copy of the police report, you should post it.
What time were the police called? I’ll get the report.
I don’t know the rule in Denver, but in some places I’ve lived it’s a misdemeanor not to report a crime against a person.
You mean like Teresa Pena, who’s Bennet’s treasurer?
Is unpaid.
Another hit piece.
Only 18 more to go.
Listen Romanoff and Bennet supporters,
It’s an election year. Bloggers are anonymous and whether paid or not, passions run high in an election year.
In 18 days, the majority of you aren’t going to post on this site again, so who cares what your reasons are for supporting one candidate over the other.
If you all want to rip into each other with your mental mind games, have fun. The rest of us know the comments spewing back and forth make as much difference as a poorly placed lawn sign.
And not that it matters, but y’know what, Bennet is a blue blood eastern society type who knows one hell of a lot about how to makes things more complicated but not much about how to make things more simple.
His spokesman looks the same as Bennet. Nice tie Trevor.
This stupid primary can’t get here soon enough.
Unless it’s causing car accidents or something.
But other than being a safety/litter issue, you can’t have a poorly-placed yeard sign because you can’t have a well-placed yard sign. Yard signs are an expense designed to make supporters feel good about not volunteering or donating. They’re an absolute waste of time, money, and volunteer resources. Yard signs don’t vote.
But I’ll bet most of these sockpuppets and shills think yard signs are vewwy, vewwy important.
but I’m curious: Do you know of any reliable research which indicates how effective or ineffective yard signs are? I’m not attacking you; I’m just curious about where this strongly-and-widely-held poliitcal-insider-platitude comes from. In the absence of any other evidence, I would assume that yard signs are just one more marginal form of political advertising, having a marginal effect on name-recognition and on creating a public impression of the breadth of support for that candidate.
Yard signs neither persuade nor provide name recognition. Direct mail (targeted), TV, Radio, and (especially) walking precincts persuade. Being at WalMart and the grocery store persuade. Anyone who shakes your hand will probably remember you.
TV and Radio are, IMHO, the best way to create name recognition. And it takes a LOT of repetitions. Send direct mail without some softening up with electronic media and people might not read your direct mail.
Yard signs DO create the illusion of support. A candidate should be judicious about their use; they do no good on a quiet little cul-de-sac. They need to go on main drags, and you need to find a lot of different property owners along those drags. The illusion of support might flip a half-convinced voter.
I used to get traffic count maps from the City and County to decide where to put yard signs, at least before I figured out that the busy routes are the busy routes year after year and figuring out the busy routes once is enough. Cities and Counties also have road classification maps. Preference goes to Arterials and above, Feeders are good too.
That said, supporters who DON’T live on busy routes will want yard signs too. You need to have enough for them or you’ll piss them off.
And be sure to order enough to replace the ones that will get stolen from your strategic routes.
If one is running as a Democrat, get yard signs from a source that will provide a union “bug.”
Better analogies:
Shilling for Bennet or Romanoff on this site is as effective as:
– farting in the wind
– trying to convince Democrats to support banning abortion
– trying to convince Republicans the new health care bill is good
– listing to Steve Harvey pontificate on why he’s more intelligent than the rest of humanity
– deciphering BJ’s comments
– telling my 5 year old to get changed in five minutes
…
I’ve never pontificated on.
Thanks, Wade!
Hope my sig line helps build your paltry IRA. 🙂
and i am not making that up.
What have you got against men with lips, Wade?
Like- if I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?
And if ya’ don’t you should stay on the porch.
I never really understood it, but hey, I like dogs.
imagined. As we get closer to the primary the number of attack diaries seem to increase, which would lead you to believe that the Romanoff campaign is stuck or sinking.
His supporters get more shrill and interestingly enough never post anything positive about the candidate they support, juat more attacks against Bennet. Maybe there isn’t anything positive to say about poor ole Andy and his lackluster campaign.
I could say a lot of positive things about AR. I have before, and I will after Aug 10.
But his current campaign has never done it. Instead, they took for granted that everyone in Colorado knew how and why he was great. Reality is that most Coloradans couldn’t tell you anything about him. And instead, consulted with the negative-outsider campaign “experts” like Cadell and Trippi.
Romanoff’s campaign is not sending their senior staff to the Bennet Headquarters to disrupt press conferences.
that’s one positive I can cite for you on Romanoff.
to smear his opponent. So much more ethical–you should write a diary about it!
Romanoff shills like yourself, prefer attacking Bennet than saying something nice about Romanoff. Probably nothing you could that would be believable at this point anyway.
Are we on AR01, Ar02 or Ar03?
Are you going to support Senator Bennet?
Simple yes-or-no question. No need to go into who killed cock robin.
What exactly happened? Did a bennet campaign person go do a press event at the Romanoff headquarters? And were the police truly called?
Otherwise we’re left figuring it was some cross words but not much more
I wasn’t there, but I read the CO Independent report cited above, and had a friend confirm Boven got it pretty close.
Nothing really happened.
AR had a press conference, Bennet staff attended.
THere was no assault – just a shouting match.
AR did acknowledge that he can’t tie any donations to Bennet to votes.
At no point did anyone name names about other PAC donation recipients in Colorado or elsewhere and how their PAC donations makes them corrupt.
You must be so proud, MADCO et al. Nobody has been more divisive in this campaign on either staff than Trevor Kincaid and this incident at Romanoff headquarters proves it.
Bennet is so overconfident he sent Kincaid over to mix it up. Why? Because he knows he has the press in his pocket. But he underestimates the people of Colorado.
Trevor Kincaid looks like Little Lord Fauntleroy, not unlike his boss.
he couldn’t connect campaign contributions to Bennet’s votes. Also had to admit that he happily took pac money for years.
You are right though, the people of Colorado don’t like phonies and that is exactly how Romanoff looks at this point.
I guess you have nothing left but personal attacks because you realize that Bennet is the better candidate and Romanoff can’t win on substance.
Were you there oldben? I wasn’t.
From the way it was described to me and from what the CI reporter wrote in the cited article, if anything was “proved” it was that AR could not, or would not tie any specific Bennet vote to any donor. None.
Nor did AR name any other names of PAC donation recipients who are corrupt, not Udall, Degette Perlmutter nor anyone else in Colorado or elsewhere.
So we know this:
– AR would have voted for the healthcare bill and would not have been “the one Senator” to kill it
– AR would have voted for the financial reform bill and would not have been “the one Senator” to kill it
– AR cannot or will not tie any specific Bennet vote to specific donation, nor will he name names of any other member of the Colorado delegation that has been corrupted by PAC donations, including himself way back in the past when he had his own PAC and accepted PAC donations
– and oldbenkenobi thinks ill of Trevor Kinkaid, but has nothing to say about Pat Caddell, nor whomever is doing the push polling against Bennet & Romanoff nor any AR supporter on CoPols that gets carried away.
I’m sure we agree on many things, oldben. But here’s one for sure: the people of Colorado should not be underestimated.
Is this diary. You’re a creepy dude, Wade.
Press staff go to opponent press conferences all the time. It’s their job. People need to get a grip. The Romanoff Victimhood Syndrome is getting old.
The way it was written makes it sound like Trevor showed up just to go fist-to-cuffs with the Romanoff campaign. The author didn’t bother explaining that it’s normal for the opposing campaign to show up to announced press conferences. He failed to mention that Romanoff’s representative gave as good as he got.
He certainly failed to mention that Andrew admitted that he couldn’t tie any of Bennet’s votes to any specific PAC donations. That’s no small admission. That’s all Romanoff had. He laid everything on it and was forced to admit that his whole campaign has been smoke and mirrors.
On second thought, I can see why the author would want to ignore those “minor details” of this story. It’s much juicier to concentrate on the more salacious details.
Now if we could just get Romanoff to answer what taking PAC money for 8 long years means for his time in the House.
Not sure what you both are talking about here:
It’s a safe guess you are not reporting what happened accurately. Are you saying Bennet did not get donations from big oil and Wall Street? I’m sure you’re not saying that. Are you saying he did not make the votes? I’m sure you’re not saying that. Romanoff is saying Bennet got the money and made the votes:
Andrew’s detailed press release on one of the votes.
The Too Big to Fail vote and an article. There’s probably a better article out there. I found all this with google and five minutes.
Article about the big oil vote. This one includes some Bennet spin you & your cohorts can start repeating constantly.
I think Bennet believes that the banks and oil companies should not be significantly restrained. It could be due to cultural capture, it could be due to a belief in a lightly regulated market, it could be something else. But I think Michael Bennet truly believes in minimal restraint on large corporations.
I think in turn, he gets major donations from their petty cash drawers because his beliefs mirror their desire to operate with no effective constraints.
by the Colorado Independent by Joseph Boven on 7/22:
How would you interpret Romanoff’s admission?
Oldben you and the AR campaign make the strangest case.
It goes something like this- and please correct as needed. Evan a separate diary if you want since this is definitely off topic here.
oldben/AR case:
a) Bennet received donations and then voted in ways the donors were pleased with. Yes, he also voted against what those donors wanted on other votes, but those don’t matter.
b) because of a), Bennet is bought and paid for and does not represent the people of Colorado.
c) AR had, in the past, received donations and then voted in ways those donors were pleased with. This, however is irrelevant. Under no circumstances at any time was AR to be thought of as bought and paid for.
d) there are 7 congressional representatives and two senators in the Colorado delegation. Polis self funds – so no matter how he votes or when he caves to special interests, he is safe from the oldben/AR smear logic.
Degette’s donations are 65% from PAC/special interest donors. She has somtimes voted in ways that have pleased those donors. At no time as oldben/AR suggested, acknowledged, hinted or otherwise conceded that by your logic she must be bought and paid for by those donors. I start with her, because AR lives in her district. Why didn’t he primary her? By your own logic- Bennet has sometimes voted with his donors because of that 18% of his donations she’s got to be the most bought and paid for member of the Colorado delegation.
AR campaigns with big and exciting talk about corruption and it “only taking one senator” but then when pressed for the practical conclusion- he admits it’s hooey.
– Would he have been that one senator for the rest of us and killed healthcare: no
– Would he have been that one senator for the rest of us and killed financial reform: no
– Can he tie any money Bennet has received to his voting record: no.
– Will he name names of which others of the Colorado delegation who have received a larger % of pac donations an are no corrupted: no
– Will he describe a time from his tainted past when he accepted pac money and was corrupted: no.
And even though this line of bs has stirred some D’s in the primary, it’s a complete loser in the general.
I could go on- but I’ll pause to see if oldben wants to name names: Who else in the CO delegation is corrupted by their PAC donations? When in AR’s tainted past was he corrupted?
regardless, this is funny and brings up a few valid points — mostly that a campaign that claims to be far ahead tries to hijack an opponent’s press conference.
You can have your own opinions, folks, but not your own facts.
Breaking: FactCheck.org takes on Romanoff/Bennet debate on PACS. http://factcheck.org/2010/07/c…
It doesn’t exonerate either of them. More importantly it makes clear that Bennet’s votes have not been paid for in any way. Out of the two fact checks it definitely, in my opinion, leaves Bennet in the better light. It left no doubts that Bennet takes PAC money, but that his votes can not be tied to that money. It left the hypocrisy of Romanoff up to the reader though.
This whole diary about Bennet’s spokesman being beautiful or not is pretty silly. But equally silly is the guy showing up at Romanoff’s press conference.
It is very normal for a candidate’s spokesman to respond to a press conference. It is also normal for a campaign to send a tracker to record what the opponent says and bring it back to the campaign so they can respond. Despite what some on here are saying it is not at all normal for the spokesman for a campaign to show up at a press conference held by the other particularly at the other candidate’s office and to offer his response there. That’s just weird and shows a lack of respect. Record it, call the press to your office and respond. I also hear it didn’t work out very well for Bennet’s guy because it gave Romanoff’s guy the chance to respond on the spot to the response Bennet’s guy was offering. If Bennet’s guy had just done it at his own office, he would have gotten his two cents in and Romanoff’s camp would not have been able to counter that.
With this race the Bennet campaign has actively prevented anybody who is not credentialed press from showing up at or filming their events. I called a friend on the Bennet campaign who told me that even today’s event is a closed event. Today Bennet will apparently call on Congress to act on Climate Legislation which is good and nicely timed since Romanoff called on Bennet to do that Friday. But it’s kind of like Bennet’s spokesman saying Bennet was a sponsor of FENA, which he is or at least he became a sponsor after Romanoff called on him to sponsor the legislation that was introduced over a year ago.