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
July 29, 2010 05:20 AM UTC

Poll Has Romanoff Withing Striking Distance (But With Grain of Salt)

  • 126 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A group called “New Leadership Colorado” sent out a press release late this evening showing Democrat Andrew Romanoff within striking distance of Sen. Michael Bennet in the race for the Democratic nomination for Senate. “New Leadership Colorado” claims that it has no ties to either Romanoff or Bennet, but obviously their interests are with Romanoff (because there would be no other reason to announce this otherwise).

The automated phone survey shows Bennet leading Romanoff 44-40, with what they say is a margin of error of +/-3.6%. Given that every other head-to-head poll released to this point has shown Bennet with a double-digit lead, this is good news for Romanoff, right?

Maybe.

The polling and memo was done by a Democratic communications firm called Zata3, a name that should be familiar to many politicos for their robocalls, direct mail and other communications tools such as text messaging.

But what Zata3 does not normally do is polling. That doesn’t mean that they definitely don’t have these numbers correct, but they are not a polling firm. You hire Zata3 to do persuasion phone calls or text messaging — not polling — just like you wouldn’t normally hire a polling firm to do your direct mail (or for a real-world example, you wouldn’t go to a dry cleaner to buy a sandwich). This is no knock on Zata3, it’s just that it seems odd that you wouldn’t use a professional polling firm if you wanted real polling results.

We wondered when we first got the press release at 6:17 PM why anyone would release something this potentially helpful so late in the day; normally you would never send something to the press this late because it would almost certainly get buried and not make it on the news. But perhaps that was the point — to put it out late enough that news outlets wouldn’t have time to really check into the data and the “pollster.”

Full press release after the jump.

A new Zata3 poll commissioned by New Leadership in Colorado shows former Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff surging to nearly within the margin of error against Senator Michael Bennet.  The survey of 800 likely and somewhat likely Democratic primary voters shows Bennett with 44% and Romanoff with 40% and 16% still undecided with two weeks until election day.  The margin of error is +/- 3.6%.

A copy of the polling memo is attached hereto.

***For questions about the survey, please contact the polling firm:  Brad

Chism, Zata3 – 202.386.6024****

New Leadership in Colorado is an independen committee with no ties with either Romanoff or Bennet.

Disclaimer:

Paid for by New Leadership in Colorado.  Not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.  New Leadership in Colorado is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Tweet
Share

Comments

126 thoughts on “Poll Has Romanoff Withing Striking Distance (But With Grain of Salt)”

  4. Colorado Pols to the side it say Bennet 5-1 and Andrew Romanoff 25-1.  Aren’t your numbers just as bazaar and why should we believe yours and not this poll?

    1. ColoradoPols’s numbers are odds, not percentages.

      Read the explanatory text.

      You do understand the difference between a poll and a bet, right?

        2. The odds are based on their ideas about how the races will go.  No formula.

          Remember, politics is a horse race.  What’s important is who wins and what tactics they use.  Status and power are the prizes and are what make politics significant.  Not how the lives of ordinary people are affected. That’s what one learns from what is posted at ColoradoPols.

        3. For each race, we take two chickens. One is painted blue, and the other is painted red. Then we throw water balloons at them. However many balloons they dodge before getting hit is the number we put on the left for each candidate.  

      2. All we hear about is how AR is the people’s candidate, the populist known to every Democrat statewide. Just like Moses he led his people out of the wilderness into the majority.  Yet he has never led in any poll. Why?

  8. Let us not refuse to see the truth when it’s in front of us.

    Thanks to ColoradoPols for pointing out the fundamental flaw in this poll: it was distributed at 6:17 p.m.! No one need read further!

    At the risk of outing myself, I will say that in several decades spent as a working journalist, it wasn’t more than a few weeks into the game that I learned some of the Basic Rules, among which were (are): “Any information in a news release sent at 6:17 p.m. should be ignored. It is certainly scurrilous and entirely unbelievable, assuredly made up from whole cloth, based on the time of transmission alone!” For one thing, fact-checkers all go home at 6:15 — goes to show what crafty types distribute press releases! For another… well, no need to go into further detail. It’s obvious that any suggestion that public opinion changes as the weeks wear on is, well, lingua latina, absurdissimus!

    The first thing any experienced journo looks for in a press release is the time it was sent. 6:15 p.m.? Fuggedaboutit! The challenge rebutted, our faith is intact. Sleep well.

    BTW, we’re on a low-sodium diet; we will take some pepper, though. Thanks.

    1. If I wanted to get maximum effect from this I would have sent it out around 9:50 tomorrow morning.

      On the flip side, there are some who say later in the afternoon because you get full attention as the only new thing for 14 hours.

    2. It was a positive story for AR.

      It was frontpaged minutes after CoPols had it.

      CoPols’s analysis may be a little whistling past the graveyard – but I think they make a decent point.

      You on the other hand are still as belligerent and condescending as ever.  

  9. As of earlier today, http://thebennetrecord.com said it was sponsored by “New Leadership in Colorado” and had nothing other than audio and text of a nasty anti-Bennet radio ad saying he voted against social security — the same subject of an email I just got from Romanoff.  NOW the same website (thebennetrecord.com) has nothing other than this new “poll.”

    So let’s be clear:

    1) New Leadership blah blah is lying when they say they have “no ties to either Romanoff or Bennet”

    2) New Leadership oddly publicized this poll on the same website where they publicized a nasty anti-Bennet ad

    3) New Leadership’s anti-Bennet ad was on the same topic, social security, as a Romanoff email of the same day.

    How stupid does AR think we are?

    Any AR shills want to argue AR really does “cleaner politics” than Bennet?  AR is basically Lee Atwater and Karl Rove’s scummier younger brother now.  I’m glad he’s made himself homeless to lose this race now.

      1. … with this group’s radio ad on 760 AM and website peddling the ad. So you have an official campaign email in AR’s name in sync with this “independent group” that dishonestly peddles an attack ad but then claims it’s independent of either campaign

          1. As raymond1 notes, the ad was sent out at 6:09pm, timed almost exactly with the first airing of the New Leadership for Colorado ad and Mario’s show.

            Dear Phoenix Rising,

            For the second time in a week, my opponent has attempted to mislead the citizens of Colorado (1). Here are the facts:

               * I oppose the privatization of Social Security. I said so in the vote I cast in the state legislature (2), and I renew that pledge now. The resolution my opponent cites has nothing to do with privatizing Social Security; in fact, it specifically urges Congress NOT to cut Social Security benefits (3).

               * My leadership on issues of concern to seniors earned me 100% ratings from AARP, the Colorado Senior Lobby, and the Colorado Gerontological Society (4).

               * My opponent voted against providing seniors with a one-time payment of $250 to cushion the blow of this recession, in the absence of a cost-of-living adjustment to their Social Security benefits (5).

               * Instead of defending the votes he has cast or the falsehoods his campaign is peddling, my opponent continues to dodge the public and the press. He has ducked seven debates to date, despite repeated attempts by the hosts — over the course of six months, in at least one case — to accommodate his schedule. I said yes to all seven requests.

            I will remain accessible and accountable to the people of Colorado when they send me to the U.S. Senate, just as I was in the Statehouse. And I will continue to defend our seniors.

            Andrew Romanoff

            (1) http://andrewromanoff.com/page/-/docs/Bennetflyer.pdf

            (2) http://andrewromanoff.com/page/-/docs/2005SSbill.pdf

            (3) http://andrewromanoff.com/page/-/docs/SJR028_enr.pdf

            (4) http://andrewromanoff.com/page/-/docs/SocialSecurityRecord.pdf

            (5) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00036

            The ad itself, apparently scrubbed clean from the Internet, first heard (by me anyway) on AM760 at 6:05, was framed as a “news report”, with the “anchor” asking something like ‘Why does Michael Bennet not support seniors?’  It also stated that Bennet voted against a COLA adjustment for Social Security – which is misleading because the vote was for a one-time adjustment of $250 in a year where the recession caused there to be no COLA.

            The Cherry Creek News, which has been riding Bennet pretty hard, had a link to the audio and some basic research on the ‘The Bennet Record’ website.  Hint: it’s pretty shady.

            If I were the Bennet campaign, I would be asking the Secretary of State to do some emergency searching for answers, checking in with the Romanoff campaign and New Leadership For Colorado for whatever details it’s legal to ask for.

  10. AR60-MB40 (party insiders/assembly and caucus attendees ect…)

    MB50-AR34-undecided16 (all the other active dem voters)

    equals about MB44-AR40-undecided16 overall with 3.6% margin of error? maybe.

    This sounds about right to me. AR has been getting great free press on AM760 in the morning and evening drive home for months, the other day saw him interviewed by Chris Mathews MSNBC, and the selling of his home may be enought to win the undecided 3 to 1?

    I think this one will be close.

    Releasing poll data at 6pm. I love this stuff! Priceless.

    1. If by that you mean two radio hosts shamelessly promoting their favored candidate to an extent not even allowed on AM 710 KNUS (home of the real talk radio crazies), then sure. I think David Sirota in particular is seriously harming his credibility by claiming to be “neutral” while pushing Romanoff as hard as he is, especially given his relationships with Romanoff’s big-name consultants like Joe Trippi and Celinda Lake.

          3. Talk about programmed programming! On every day at 6:17!

            Seriously, did you know Romanoff wants to repeal laws barring cannibalism? Not many people do, but I heard it on Bumpkin as I was driving to Huckster Huckleberry’s Fast Buck place (great food, but a bit hard to find — sorta hidden behind Phabulous Phil’s in Centennial).

            Ummmm. One caution, though. If you plan on plugging in your computer, be advised that the outlets are wired for DC.

            1. Because you are a nut who consistently lurches to the nuttiest conclusion possible, people do not take you seriously.

              It should also be possible to minimally tell the difference between a joke and a serious statement, but you lost me there a long time ago.

        2. …Because third grade was 37 years ago and I yearn to hear someone, say EXetera, Lookit, pundint, and trill the Rs in pronouncing Colorado while saying EYErack.

      2. The lead-in to the 6:00 segment on Mario’s show was the New Leadership for Colorado misleading anti-Bennet ad, and he spent the first part of the segment blasting the Bennet ad for being wrong without saying a single thing about the ad that played several times during the segment.

        Mario and Sirota both claim to be making attempts to be unbiased in this election race, but they’re transparent as all hell as to who they’re supporting.

        1. When Mario announced these new poll results, conveniently in the 6:00 hour as New Leadership Colorado’s ads were running, he didn’t mention that New Leadership had sponsored the poll.  He did mention Zata3, but not the poll sponsor.

          Do he and his staff even bother listening to the freakin’ commercials they’re running?

          I hope Mario has the guts to admit tomorrow during his show – prominently – that he was taken by a partisan group airing a misleading ad who handed him a poll of questionable value.

    2. that he’s a Romanoff supporter! It doesn’t mean anything other than that, except maybe that Romanoff supporters haven’t had much to tweet about lately, so have at it.

      But Pols is right about at least one thing. This poll was ready long before it was released. The reason you release something like this after hours is so it reverberates around the Twittersphere before anyone can do any real reporting on it. Mission accomplished!

      1. I personally think he’s a scumbag, but nobody will deny he knows how to manipulate the unfiltered, unreviewed new mediasphere for his own advantage.

  12. I’ve never believed the double digits. I just didn’t see it. This is a fight to the end.  Two great candidates — one will lose.  Meanwhile, all over Republican-heavy Congressional districts, there is little competition. Romanoff should have moved out of Denver and unseated Coffman or Lamborn or one of the others. He is the only one who could have had a chance.

            1. Many others in Colorado just don’t see it the way you and your friends here on Pols do. Many in Colorado aren’t establishment Democrats either. They are rank and file Dems.

              I believe this is clearly the breakdown of support lines between Bennet and Romanoff.

    1. Which D nominee do you think would run closer while losing to Buck?  Clearly they would both lose  – but who runs a tougher oppo for Buck?

      1. not sure how sincere you are about that second statement, but Romanoff would do much better. I just hope the Dems are as divided as possible going into the general election. After all, with what we’re handing you in the governor’s race, we deserve a break somewhere.

          1. So far, she hasn’t won anything except governor of Alaska, which while helpful to Alaskans doesn’t help me. I don’t see how you think Tancredo is a good thing for me. A) he splits the vote, and B) he is a big govenment guy – voted for TARP, bailouts, and earmarks. He is a one issue guy and only good on immigration.

  15. Who knew the Cherry Creek News had so much influence?

    Finally the Bennet Anschutz story.

    http://www.thecherrycreeknews….

    Bennet made more than $11.4 million during the years after the Regal Cinema deals. In 2001, Regal Cinemas closed 30% of its theaters, shuttering 128 theaters. With 30-50 full or part-time employees at the average theater, these closures eliminated an estimated 4,000 – 6,400 jobs. So while in some quarters, including the editorial page of the Denver Post, this financial engineering was praiseworthy, the reality is it impacted thousands of families, and cost investors millions while crippling an otherwise productive company.

    3. Jared Polis is a whole lot richer than Bennet. Why aren’t you Romanuts making him out to be the son of Satan?  

      Give me a friggin break. Money has nothing to do with it. It’s all about integrity. Michael has it.

      1. was a REAL businessman who actually created a business and jobs. Kind of like Hick that way. He wasn’t some employee hack working for the man doing the man’s dirty work to further enrich the man. He was the man!

        But I thought that would have been obvious PM.

        1. must be nice to never have had to work for someone who’s politics were different from your own nor to ever have to work for someone else and just be your own boss.

          Most of us don’t get that opportunity.

          1. that wooden spoon I was born with in my mouth made it possible for me to live off my trust fund.

            In fact though, my present boss is a very conservative Pentacostalist Christian. We have wonderful discussions of all things spiritual, religious, political, etc.

            But I am not trading on my experience as a businessman to get elected as a United States Senator though. Bennet is.

            1. The point is that IF you were to run for elected office, what your bosses politics are shouldn’t be held against you. This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen. We now live in a time when making a lot of money, through smart financial moves that have been explained in detail by MADCO here: http://coloradopols.com/diary/… is suddenly a bad thing.

              We live in a time where we hold the candidate’s employer against him. We examine the employer’s actions, politics, and finances for weakness’ to attack the candidate. No one sees this as a very slippery slope? Will anyone who ever thinks they might possibly enter the public sector at some point be forced to turn down employment that could get them the skills, finances, or connections needed to improve their lives. Are we going to be forced to screen our potential employer’s politics?

              Should Bennet have dug into every single employer Romanoff every worked for? Every supervisor he ever had? Should he have checked his party registration?

              It’s such a ridiculous point.

                1. you have no sense of shame if you think Romanoff’s expeience isn’t much. Or maybe you’re just a Bennet troll slamming AR unfairly all the time. That could be it,

                  2. If you are impressed by it, so be it.  I like someone who has some experience outside of government and who has actually had to work for a living.  It’s not an unfair slam to Romanoff.  It’s my honest opinion and has a strong sway for me.  

                    If Romanoff ran anything other than a negative, attack campaign, maybe some of us who didn’t spend a number of years worshipping him and following his every move might have some idea who the guy is.  I’d say it’s a campaign problem; they haven’t adequately defined their candidate to those of us who have a life outside of politics.  He looks pretty angry on those commercials.

              2. what did the diary have to do with PA’s politics? It had a lot to do with how PA and MB made lot’s of money doing what many on CP consider good, honest, hard work- restructuring failing companies, saddling them with new debt so you can take out large profits on your investment. many companies do this. it doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do or good honest work to do it.

                This is about how someone makes his or her money more than how much money they make. And it really has little or nothing to do with PA’ politics. that is th ered herring that keeps getting tossed in.

                1. nor the way in which he did. It also isn’t about PA. I brought it up in response to this post by you:

                  He wasn’t some employee hack working for the man doing the man’s dirty work to further enrich the man…

                  followed by MADCO:

                  must be nice to never have had to work for someone who’s politics were different from your own nor to ever have to work for someone else and just be your own boss.

                  Most of us don’t get that opportunity.

                  followed by you again:

                  In fact though, my present boss is a very conservative Pentacostalist Christian. We have wonderful discussions of all things spiritual, religious, political, etc.

                  But I am not trading on my experience as a businessman to get elected as a United States Senator though. Bennet is.

                  By following the thread of that exchange you seemed to be saying that Bennet’s employer’s politics were somehow germane. My point was a candidate’s previous employer’s politics should in no way reflect poorly on that candidate.

                  As to the specific case of the Regal restructuring: What Bennet did allowed Regal to employ thousands instead of closing all of its doors. I’m no good at financial specifics but the way I understand it, they took 3 failing companies, consolidated them into one. Closed some of the theaters (forcing some layoffs) and built the new company up into a nice powerful theater chain. The new chain was then able to open many new theaters and employing more people. Also hiring hundreds of suppliers and so on. In what way is this a bad thing?

                  1. I never mentioned his boss’ politics. and those were comments, not the diary. It was a side issue and I responded as a side point. The main point of the diary was how Bennet made his money, it had nothing to do with the politics of his employer.

                    And the spin about how they saved Regal is pretty good. They kept a company from going bankrupt, right? BTW, had Regal or any of those three chains already filed for bankruptcy before Anschutz stepped in do you know? Were they already in bankruptcy court proceedings? I don’t think so. So this hagiography is built on a false premise.

                    Were they mismanaged and could another board with different management have done better. Almost definitely. But that doesn’t mean saddling the company with billions in new debt simply to pay out huge dividends for major shareholders like PA was good for the company. No more so that the complex derivative interest swap exchange was good for DPS.

                    1. As I’ve explained before I admire my candidate I don’t attempt canonize him. Don’t cheapen what I thought was one of the few polite discussions of the candidates on this site by taking a cheap shot. (one that I literally have only seen taken by BJ http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

                      As to your question about whether Regal was in bankruptcy before Anschutz stepped in, are you talking about Regal the individual property chain or Regal Inc the finished consolidated company? And are we talking about Anchutz the man or Anschutz Inc?

                      I think it’s interesting that with no explanation you state unequivocally that what was done at Regal wasn’t good for the company. Do you have any proof that something better could have or should have been done? Is Regal currently in trouble? Are they having massive layoffs? Or in this recession, being in a service industry, an industry that consumers usually cut first, is Regal holding steady?

          2. so you don’t have to dirty your hands working for the man.  You can choose to not work or choose to work only at your ideal job. Working, even at something you don’t like or with people who differ idealogically, builds character.  I’ve had to do it.  I admire others who have had to do it.  

              1. The fact that Bennet went into the business job with no business experience and no MBA and was so successful tells me he’s a quick study and a really sharp guy.  

            2. You shills and sockpuppets… where the hell is this trust fund?  People keep talking about it, but Romanoff’s father was a county judge; his mother was a social worker.  Sounds comfortable, but not “bottomless trust fund” comfortable.

              Again… my ballot is going into the trash.  What a bunch of maroons…

              1. You explain it AreWeNotMen:  the 30K salary that ended in 2008, the house in Wash Park, the DU law school education (graduated in 2008 but didn’t bother to take the bar exam), the world travel during this time (and for weeks). On 30K, you can barely cover the rent, a car, food, and insurance; and you pretty much live paycheck to paycheck.  I’ve been there.  If you have a better explanation, we’d love to hear it.

            3. telling us how corrupt Andrew is. How he must be doing something shady or underhanded financially to afford his moderately comfortable lifestyle. Do you have any proof other than your random ramblings? If not, why don’t you shut up about it!

              Have you looked at any of his financial disclosures over the years? His tax returns, etc? You keep harping on his $30K as a legislator. Doesn’t the Speaker get paid a little more I believe as he is a full year employee? I think so. I think they at least get some form of per diem when the legislature is out but they still have to work on official state business.

              SO unless you have something more to go on than rumor and innuendo, stop with the bullshit.

              1. what a great idea.

                Follow these steps

                1) http://www.sos.state.co.us/

                2) select “Elections” on the left

                http://www.sos.state.co.us/pub…

                3)select  View Election Document Images

                http://www.sos.state.co.us/Ima…

                4) type Romanoff in the “name” field

                http://www.sos.state.co.us/Ima…

                4) is kind of tricky- the database will time out and th elink may not go where it goes .  But 1) 2) and 3) should get you to the right place- enter the last name and search.

                5) See items #49 from Sep 09 and #50  from Dec 09.

                Trust fund and salary and etc.

                Soo AR did show $41,000 as his salary and per deim as a Speaker.  But he shouldn’t have been drawing per diem to travel around the world.

                It also shows he is a beneficiary recipient of a trust fund.

                so now, STFU

                1. why don’t you STFU (I guess acronyms don’t get offensive posts deleted, but actually writing the “F” word is taboo. How strange…)

                  I think we do pay our state leaders to travel wherever our state’s interests indicate they might be needed. Was he on a delegation trying ot drum up international trade? Do you already know this? Or are you trying to spin some more, shill?

                  BTW, how do you have so much time for all that research? And the in-depth knowledge? Are you a state worker? Are you doing this on the taxpayers dime? Hmmmm… makes me wonder.

        2. Jared Polis Schutz (now Jared Schutz Polis) was a lucky bastard who took a website that had zero revenue and sold it to a bunch of dot-com idiots for hundreds of millions in cash.  2 years later, the idiots (Excite@Home) sold the website (BlueMountainArts.com) for less than 5% of what they paid for it and went bankrupt soon after.  The Excite@Home stockholders really lost out on that one (I don’t know if any of them were Louisiana school teachers).

          I suspect BlueMountainArts.com had few employees.  Jared’s other ventures such as Proflowers probably have employed actual humans.  But he really made his money by accepting the outrageous offer of Excite@Home.  Can’t really blame him for that, and it does show savvy, but it’s not exactly the story of someone building up a business from the sweat of his brow.

      2. I can vouch for that. Integrity — “the Man’s Scent that Makes Women Break Out in Sweat Pants, now in convenient 6.17 oz. aerosol cans” — was marked down at WalMart earlier this year. Friend of mine saw at least two Senate aides scooping product off the shelves as fast as clerks could put it out.

        ‘Nuf said.

    4. without the reorg and hired another thousand people?  Or would the cinemas have been in worse shape, closed more doors, and eliminated more jobs.  Without the full story, this really has no meaning.  

  16. Zata3 has conducted 4 other polls on congressional races this cycle according to talkingpointsmemo and their website indicates that they’ve done polling on at least one mayoral race in the past.  

    http://polltracker.talkingpoin…

    Google news also indicates published polls in the 2006 San Francisco supervisors’ race and a 2007 Mississippi senate poll

    No idea what kind of quality these guys are, but they do have automated polling experience.  Of course their website terms polls as “in-depth surveys” which would indicate to me that they might favor long-winded questionnaires.  Automated phone polls tend be biased by enthusiastic partisans that are willing to make it through without hanging up anyway, and a lengthy survey would exacerbate that.  Whether the poll itself is bogus or not, the methodology might have contributed to an outlying result.

    I’m surprised that they got 16% undecided.  I certainly wouldn’t sit all the way through a robocall in order to register my preference for “I dunno”

  17. No one despises Democrats like Andrew Romanoff more than myself – running against Andrew and the CODA machine is a very difficult proposition for any Republican

    Yes – I know Stryker, Gill, and the labor unions play a big role, but there has to be a guy training and mentoring Democrat candidates, and that man for the Dems was Romanoff – I recalled the countless times he came to Eagle and Summit to campaign for Christine Scanlan in 2008 and with the margin that she won by, clearly his visits mattered (and props to Minority Leader Mike May for doing the same for me – it was a huge help)

    Anyways – to put that much work into building the Party and now to have so many Dem activists turning against one? Even as an adversary, it is heartbreaking for me to watch this, because it shows that good work as an activist, perhaps, isn’t as appreciated as we think it is?

    However – Andrew should have gotten into the race much earlier – that move alone has killed him, along with his mistake of not running for Governor in 2006

    Should Andrew not go further politically, his career can be written as a book with the title ‘Missed Opportunities’ – few people get ONE chance to grab a major political seat (Governor’s race 2006)…. even fewer get TWO chances (early entrance into the 2010 Senate race)… Andrew has good looks, intelligence, and energy… but his achilles heal is a lack of killer instinct, which in this political age, may be the most important factor of any race

    1. Romanoff, and Chris Gates alongside him, put a huge effort into building up the Democratic candidate bench in Colorado and put Democrats in the driver’s seat in the state.

      Gates was ousted for the perception of being not involved enough with some of the counties and of being involved with promoting Salazar over Miles during the 2006 primary.

      Romanoff, if he loses this race, appears to have just the opposite issue: even though the DSCC is supporting Bennet against him in a primary (to the frustration of many party activists), he’s having trouble getting the traction he needs to finish the job.

      My ultimate takeaway from this is that the petty attacks coming from people supporting both campaigns is sad, and does not flatter the people involved or reflect well on those they support.

      1. I think you guys are overestimating the political attacks – that’s a fact of life in politics now

        But losing Romanoff and Gates would be an ultimate downfall for the Dems – there’s very few politicians and strategists who give a damn about building a bench – having a Speaker like Romanoff who used that bully pulpit to build a bench is a huge help to any Party and Romanoff isn’t given the proper credit for building that bench

        The Colorado GOP is HORRIBLE at bench building and it will haunt us for years – the Dems may finally be heading here too  

  18. What this really shows is a need for more data. When will the Denver Ghost or a real media outlet release some more polling? We’ve gone too long without new results, and this unknown outfit polling for a pro-Romanoff group doesn’t cut it.

  19. “New Leadership In Colorado is a group of Colorado people who believe that our state deserves great leadership.  We are not affiliated, nor are we coordinating in any way with either Michael Bennet, Andrew Romanoff, Ken Buck, or Jane Norton’s campaigns.  We are a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation and are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a Political Organization under IRC Section 527.  We have nothing further to add, but we thank you for your inquiry.”

    Debbie Wamsley, Volunteer Treasurer

    Let’s see, no info on the questions asked, no info on who they are or what they want to accomplish, no nothing. I’d put their credibility at -5 on a scale of 0 to 100.

    2. And found that person’s job is Chief of Staff of AFL-CIO-Colorado. If that job title is current – isn’t AFL-CIO-CO pro AR? Just wondering.

  20. With respect to your post on our commissioned poll, please know that Zata3 has a record of polling and producing accurate numbers.  In fact, in one of this year’s other biggest Senate primaries and now general elections, Zata3 has accurately polled in Arkansas on behalf of a media outlet.  Zata3 was the first pollster to show that Democratic primary candidate DC Morrison was receiving an astonishing ten percent of the vote against incumbent senator Blanche Lincoln and her chief rival Bill Halter.  On election day, DC Morrison garnered over 10 percent and causes a run-off election.  No other polling firm accurately predicted that. The Colorado poll’s numbers and methodology are credible.  Thank you

    Link to talkbusiness.net

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

88 readers online now

Newsletter

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