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
August 06, 2010 04:56 AM UTC

Colorado Pols - caught in the act spinning for Bennet

  • 25 Comments
  • by: wade norris

So I just looked at a recent comment by Colorado Pols in Raf’s diary.

As for debunking the Romanoff “disadvantage”

Any disadvantage he had in this Primary was his own doing. We discussed this many times in the last 18 months. Nobody forced Romanoff to wait until August to announce his candidacy, by which time he was already millions of dollars behind in fundraising. He could have jumped in the race in March, when he first polled on it, and it would have made a huge difference.

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 18:04:00 PM MDT

[ Parent | Reply ]

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

To which I replied:



nice try Colorado Pols

but I was there in September when Colorado Pols (said)

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

Bennet Scramble to Show Democratic Bonafides Too Little, Too Late

   by: Colorado Pols

   Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:10:43 PM MDT

   Sure, Bennet has raised a ton of money, but in a Democratic primary where Romanoff will start with significantly  greater name ID, the latter needs only to be able to raise enough money to be competitive. Romanoff doesn’t need to outspend Bennet, or even come close, because he is so much more well-known and liked among Democratic primary voters.

You can see that Colorado Pols has clearly supported the idea that Romanoff both had better name ID and ‘likability’ with Democrats and that this was more important than money. “Romanoff doesn’t need to outspend Bennet, or even come close” the editors said.

This was not 18 months ago, but 11 months ago. And furthermore, the credibility gap for Colorado Pols goes back even further.

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

While we are at it, let’s look at all of the Bennet bashing was doing before they took a complete 180 on the Senate Primary.


What the Hell?

by:  Colorado Pols

Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:58:56 AM MST

In other words, Bennet is a good choice if all things are equal…but they’re not. It’s not that Bennet is a bad choice because of who he is – Bennet is a bad choice because there were so many better options….

Ritter could have gone with a popular Mayor who enjoys tremendous name ID throughout the Front Range (Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper). He could have chosen an incumbent congressman with a big warchest who could seamlessly move into the office (Rep. Ed Perlmutter).He could have chosen a popular former Speaker of the House whose selection wouldn’t have caused a domino effect of jockeying to fill his seat (Andrew Romanoff). Ritter could have chosen a lot of people who had strong name ID and weren’t just known as “Denver people,” but he didn’t. He chose Michael Bennet.

http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…

Michael Bennet’s Problem, In a Nutshell (+)

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:04:52 AM MST

To be fair, Bennet had not really been introduced to the group in a clear manner, but he also demonstrated an almost total lack of charisma. And this is exactly why we thought Gov. Bill Ritter’s selection of Bennet for U.S. Senate was such a disaster.

While Democrats like Rep. Ed Perlmutter and former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff were warmly received on Saturday, others didn’t even know who Bennet was. And these are Democrats. Active Democrats. If they don’t know who Bennet is, and if he doesn’t have the natural charisma to carry a small room, then how is he going to win a statewide election in 2010?

http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…


Ritter Hopes Primary Won’t Split Democrats; Also Wants a Unicorn (+)

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:57:00 AM MDT

So, yes, picking Romanoff (or John Hickenlooper, or Ed Perlmutter) would have been safer politically for Ritter. Smarter, too.

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

Bennet Scramble to Show Democratic Bonafides Too Little, Too Late (+)

   by: Colorado Pols

   Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:10:43 PM MDT

If Bennet had come out early for the public option and supported EFCA in some form — even if just a promise to vote for cloture, which is all Udall has done — then there’s a good chance that Romanoff never would have had the groundswell of support behind him to justify a primary challenge. Sure, Bennet would have then made himself slightly (though not significantly) more vulnerable in a general election, but it’s better to be a little more vulnerable in November than to never make it to November at all.

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

Reading these posts, you’d think this website was devoted to an objective, impartial view of the Primary.

What happened?

I don’t know, but somewhere between September and October, Colorado Pols began trashing Andrew Romanoff at every turn.

Vote Romanoff for Senate – He’s a Nice Guy and All (+)

by: Colorado Pols

Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:37:52 AM MDT

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…


More Weirdness from Romanoff Campaign (+)

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:11:04 AM MST

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…


Who’s Driving the Romanoff Train? (+)

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:44:15 PM MST

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

And on and on from then, up till the present day.

Colorado Pols has belittled every positive story about Andrew Romanoff – even the recent poll that shows Andrew Romanoff pulling ahead of Bennet, meanwhile Bennet gets positive press here.

And the whole time, they have kept ridiculous odds on the Big Line, always citing Bennet’s money for the reason Romanoff was 20-1 or 25-1.

Now its 17-1 and  Romanoff is ‘out of time’ even though Bennet is down in latest polls and he has blown 4 million dollars while doing so – and has earned the reputation for running a

‘horrendous’ campaign.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c…

So what happened?

How does a website go from impartial to in the tank for a candidate?

And should editors here have to disclose that they support Bennet – or is it so obvious?

The way I see it, Andrew Romanoff should win Tuesday and then will win the General with ease. If however, Michael Bennet wins Tuesday, he better win in November as well.

Because if he doesn’t win in November, then this site will be squarely to blame for helping at every turn to defeat a stronger candidate in Andrew Romanoff.

Colorado Pols was supposed to be a site that countered newspaper bias and bad journalism. Instead I was shocked that the editors were quoting Right Wing editorial writer, Vincent Carroll – to smear a good democrat like Andrew Romanoff. http://www.denverpost.com/edit…

I hope the editors of Colorado Pols will think about how they have wasted their credibility and hurt the democratic party.

Tweet
Share

Comments

25 thoughts on “Colorado Pols – caught in the act spinning for Bennet”

        1. thing to support a candidate, but the wayb they attack Bennet and his supporters only hurts Romanoff in the long run. Guees it won’t matter after he loses the primary.

  2. So therefore wait for Pols to delete it, Bennet supporters to try and change the subject to talk about something else, Bennet supporters to attack you or Bennet supporters to laugh at you and call you dumb even though they know you’re right and they don’t want to admit it.  

    1. I doubt they will delete.  Or, they may give some random bullshit explanation like “well that’s not really what we meant…but…umm…Romanoff sucks”

    2. This is what happened.

      When Andrew first threw his hat in the ring, people all over CO said, “This is kind of crazy timing, but we do love Andrew Romanoff, and this Bennet guy is great. If I go with Bennet, I’ll still be nice to Andrew, because we might need him to run for Governor or something else”.

      Then, as the campaign progressed, shills like JO, Oz, Stryker, O’Toole and others were so nasty, so vile, so rude, that people like me said, “Hey, if Andrew is such a good guy, why does he let these people pollute the blogs with their hate-speech?”

      Then, Andrew became the author of the hate-speech. He released commercials on television that were so slanderous, so fictional and so nasty that every major newspaper and television station in CO denounced them as such. We all saw the REAL ANDREW. End of respect for Andrew Romanoff.

      That’s what happened.  

      1. Let’s look at your argument

        shills like JO, Oz, Stryker, O’Toole and others were so nasty, so vile, so rude, that people like me said, “Hey, if Andrew is such a good guy, why does he let these people pollute the blogs with their hate-speech?”

        CoPols wrote it’s first negative Romanoff piece Oct. 20, 2009

        Vote Romanoff for Senate – He’s a Nice Guy and All (+)

        by: Colorado Pols

        Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:37:52 AM MDT

        http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

        Many of the people you list were not even members of the site at that time

        StrykerK2

        Created: Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 15:49:47 PM MST

        And, Andrew did not start any type of advertising until the summer of 2010 – and the negative ads were in the late summer.

        So your claim that


        “others were so nasty, so vile, so rude, that people like me said, “Hey, if Andrew is such a good guy, why does he let these people pollute the blogs with their hate-speech?”

        People like you or you?

        In fact on Oct.20,2009 in that first anti-Romanoff diary, you posted this

        This year, CO has a progressive Senator in Michael Bennet, who also happens to be respected for his financial smarts.  CO has no need to support a challenger.  That is a whole lot different than 2008.

        Tancredo/Marceaux 2010

        “No fringe on flags.”

        by: peacemonger @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 00:37:18 AM MDT

        maybe i should change this diary to

        “peacemonger caught in the act spinning for Bennet”

         

    2. how about this subject?

      NYT Unloads Devastating Story About Bennet/Wall Street Rip-Off of Denver Public Schools


      Michael F. Bennet, now a United States senator from Colorado who was superintendent of the school system at the time, and Thomas Boasberg, then the system’s chief operating officer, persuaded the seven-person board of the deal’s advantages, according to interviews with its members.

      Since it struck the deal, the school system has paid $115 million in interest and other fees, at least $25 million more than it originally anticipated.

      To avoid mounting expenses, the Denver schools are looking to renegotiate the deal. But to unwind it all, the schools would have to pay the banks $81 million in termination fees, or about 19 percent of its $420 million payroll.

      John MacPherson, a former interim executive director of the Denver Public Schools Retirement System, predicts that the 2008 deal will generate big costs to the school system down the road. “There is no happy ending to this,” Mr. MacPherson said. “Hindsight being 20-20, the pension certificates issuance is something that should never have happened.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…

      how’s that?

      1. The Denver certificates contained debt issues that had variable rates and were to be resold to investors in weekly auctions; the arrangement carried an annual interest rate of around 5 percent, not counting fees and costs associated with that type of debt. Fixed-rate debt would have cost 7.2 percent.

        Wow. Even if the fees were over 2%  annualized- sounds like a push.

        In the end, a deal that JPMorgan said would have an interest rate of around 5 percent spiked to 8.59 percent during its first fiscal year, and has since settled down to an average rate of 7.12 percent today.

        Averaging 7.12.

        Hmmp – sounds just about the same as the fixed rate would have been.

        Oh- it is just about the same

        While it is possible that the annual costs of the Denver deal will come down in the future, they are now roughly in line with what the school system would have paid in a fixed-rate transaction.

        So it sounds like the DPS projected it could save big money. Instead it saved far less than was projected- saving just a little instead of the big savings that was forecast.

        Wow- I bet Bennet is proud of this.

        From the campaign trail in mid-July, Mr. Bennet reiterated his support of the deal, saying that it had achieved the school system’s goal of improving its cash flow and merging with Colorado’s Public Employees’ Retirement Association, which meant the schools no longer had to pay 8.5 percent interest on its annual pension shortfall.

        “Despite going through the worst recession since the Great Depression, we did that,” he said in a statement.

        I would be proud too.

        I structured something  sort of like this for a corporate investor once. Not as big, but in multiple currencies so a little more complex.  It didn’t do as well as the forecast, totally my fault,   but it did ok.  Ok enough that the international portfolio we were managing was able to double twice in two years.  We had been aiming for one year and we would have made it in less than a year but for Enron’s collapse temporarily screwing up our access to credit.  At our annual meeting I showed the original forecast – and the credit terms that were directly impacted by Enron.  I agreed with the room that I was not smart enough to have predicted Enron’s collapse since I never understood howthehell they were making so much money any way.

        So- in the DPS deal, we have a forecast to save a ton of cash. Instead, DPS saves very little. Because the forecast didn’t predict the worst recession since the Great  Depression and the corresponding bank and credit market failures DPS just about breaks even.  Ok.

  5. As the world of politics changed over the last 18 months, our analysis also changed. That’s so weird.

    You’re absolutely right. We should have formulated just one analysis and opinion about everything, and stuck to  that no matter what happens in the world. Things change, but blogs should NEVER change! NEVERRR!!!

    And yes, we totally agree with you on the last point. If a Democrat is not elected to the Senate, it will all be because of Colorado Pols. Even though we’ve already “jumped the shark” a dozen times this year and are no longer relevant in politics.

     

    1. it is clear from the cited and linked comments made by the editors running this site,

      they thought Ritter made a grave mistake picking an unknown like Bennet over Perlmutter, Hickenlooper, and Romanoff.

      Furthermore, it was just 11 months ago that you were calling into question Bennet’s terrible mismanagement of the opportunity he had to prevent a primary from Romanoff:

      Bennet Scramble to Show Democratic Bonafides Too Little, Too Late (+)

        by: Colorado Pols

        Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:10:43 PM MDT

      If Bennet had come out early for the public option and supported EFCA in some form — even if just a promise to vote for cloture, which is all Udall has done — then there’s a good chance that Romanoff never would have had the groundswell of support behind him to justify a primary challenge.

      You said just today

      As for debunking the Romanoff “disadvantage”

      Any disadvantage he had in this Primary was his own doing. We discussed this many times in the last 18 months. Nobody forced Romanoff to wait until August to announce his candidacy, by which time he was already millions of dollars behind in fundraising.

      We discussed this many times in the last 18 months

      um, hell no you didn’t. In September you were citing reasons why Bennet was not doing more to stop the primary.

      18 months ago you were assailing Ritter:

      Ritter could have chosen a lot of people who had strong name ID and weren’t just known as “Denver people,” but he didn’t. He chose Michael Bennet.

      And 17 months ago it was

      While Democrats like Rep. Ed Perlmutter and former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff were warmly received on Saturday, others didn’t even know who Bennet was. And these are Democrats. Active Democrats. If they don’t know who Bennet is, and if he doesn’t have the natural charisma to carry a small room, then how is he going to win a statewide election in 2010?

      If this was a respectable newspaper – you would print some kind of retraction/correction.

      This is one example of how the blogs are actually less credible than a newspaper, because you editors can hide behind anonymity and write one thing one day and another the next and not have to account for anything.

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

209 readers online now

Newsletter

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