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%
February 02, 2013 09:06 AM UTC
68 Comments
Way to go Andrew!
I can hardly wait to hear the bluster and false bravado from Mike Coffman as he slams the bunker door behind himself 🙂
This early showing, which makes him first out of the gate, is a welcome turn-around from the 2010 will he / won't he hesitation that many believe killed any chance he had of gathering significant support. And just from the website, there seems to be other major improvements as well.
For one example, it is clear that someone on his campaign is planning ahead, taking on the "carpet bagger" attack before they have to levy it, look at this line from the 'About Andrew' section:
This conveys two big, important messages. The first is "I have worked all over the world, doing good work." the second is, "Some of that good work included being a teacher at a community college right in the heart of the district I am running for." Putting the word "Aurora" in his Bio, sandwiched between two other jobs that are going to be admired by those on the left, is a solid strategy and a very encouraging move.
I've already signed up to volunteer and mailed a check. I'm looking forward to seeing many of my old friends there, too.
And look, He's just launched a Facebook Page, too.
So wish I could still edit…
We just performed an act of mercy and spell-checked your otherwise excellent comment. Note this function is available before clicking "Post." 🙂
Signed,
Deus ex Machina
Really? What do we click on to got this function? So far I've only found options to download and I don't want to download more stuff. My own spellcheck works fine elsewhere In fact, when I feel like taking the time I can copy to my e-mail, spell check, then use a box that pops up here to paste and then copy to the comment box but that's kind of time consuming compared to the nifty edit that was here for a while. No matter how carefully I think I'm re-reading my post for mistakes, some always seem to get through if I don't use some kind of spell check.
Oh good heavens. No, it may not actually appear for mortals. Sorry all, adding this to our fix-soon list (works great for us).
what? Ya don't like stepping backward. Hope somebody finds some good in the upgrade — it's a source of pain-in-the-@ss frustration for me.
Is this Andrew's moment? Absolutely! Thank you, Andrew!
Alrighty then!
WOAH: Romanoff's release was sent to "Hick's Press List" from OnSight Public Affairs. Is Hickenlooper helping Romanoff??
Bet you have a tough time getting logged back in after this site logs you off. BTW, Whoa is spelled — well — you can see already.
Colorado only has one woman in the entire federal delegation, Diana DeGette. One out of nine doesn't cut it, and given New Hampshire's all-female delegation it's kind of embarrassing. I'd rather see a good strong Democratic woman running in this seat, especially since women voters determine elections in Colorado.
Damn right women do decide Colorado elections! I'm giving that a +1000.
Nice thought but, even with a now weaker incumbent in an altered CD6, taking a seat from an established incumbent in the low info world of HD races is no piece of cake. CD6 has never had a Dem Rep in its entire history. I want the strongest candidate I can get as a CD6 Dem to get over this hump and I believe that Andrew Romanoff is that candidate. Apparently so does Fields, D-Aurora.
Besides, I don't really see Middleton as particularly preferable on policy. Certainly not different enough to justify putting up a candidate I believe is not as strong a contender, regardless of gender. In fact I would support Romanoff over her even without electability considerations. So for me, Andrew represents a win/win choice for my district.
I was a big fan before the hissy fit he threw when we had a good incumbent in Bennet. Prior to that I was very disappointed when he didn't get the appointment that Bennet got in the first place. I just felt that, by the time the election rolled around, Bennet, a fellow centrist, was doing fine and Romanoff should have let it go. He not only didn't but he allowed his campaign to get way too dirty out of what seemed more like spite than any significant policy differences. I see it as an understandable but unfortunate emotional response. But that was then. I'll be more than happy to have the old pre-appointment snub Romanoff back in action.
I think everybody needs to take a deep breath and remember that this is about Coffman. Coffman was proven weak in 2012, and Coffman can be taken out in 2014 by a strong challenge.
There will be a choice for Democrats in this race. Romanoff has some things to answer for before he'll have my support. I don't live in CD-6 but the choice of who will replace Coffman in Congress is very important to me nonetheless. At this moment, nobody is entitled to anything, and Romanoff is not the favorite.
If it is Romanoff's "moment," it's not predestined and he will have to earn it.
Great move Andrew!
Awesome news!!!
Early momentum is good. Every other candidate now has to ask themself what they bring that makes them think they can beat Romanoff.
The lack of women in higher office in Colorado not okay, especially in a state where there are more women voters than men. I'm smelling a sense of entitlement here. Every candidate has to earn it.
I disagree — it's about pragmatism. Andrew sold his Denver home and now can live anywhere he wants in Colorado. Given his depth of experience representing the best interests of Coloradans over the last decade, it just makes perfect sense that he would step up to the chance to serve a broader constituency in CD6 (where I live).
No "entitlements" here.
Bull shit. Nothing pragmatic about Romanoff. He might as well be "Feddy and the dreamers."
I think Romanoff got pretty well schooled on entitlement when he failed to get appointed and then failed to oust Bennet so I wouldn't worry about that. And if you think women support women just for being women you obviuosly haven't been paying attention. See Obama winning over HRC and Palin doing nothing to attract women to the GOP. And don't expect a lot of applause from us for Michelle Bachmann just because she wears lipstick.
By the same token, I don't think Salazar is entitled to statewide office when he comes back to Colorado. I'd like to see some fresh faces, particularly women, elevated by Colorado Democrats.
I think Salazar would be an excellent public servant for Colorado.
Nobody in Colorado knows more about the Interior Department or the critical resource management issues facing our state then Ken.
He would be a AA awesome as a replacement to Avglooper.
If you are upset with Gov. Hickenlooper over his positions on fracking, you won't like Ken Salazar any better. As a Senator in 2006, he advocated for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, see the link http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/bp-exempted-05-05-2010.html
Frankly, I was shocked when President Obama named him Secretary of the Interior. Talk about the fox watching the hen house.
I'm not an Mediocrelooper fan because I expect people who have a chance to do something do something. The guy is a care taker with little direction or inspiration. He is a right center millionaire who fancies himself to be in the same leadership league as Obama. Talk about delusional.
Salazar cleaned up MMS and worked on a bunch of non-oil related projects so I'm OK with his resume.
Wes
So happy to see this in my inbox this morning. I was a Bennet supporter and hated that primary.
He'll get a few dollars today from me.
Not against the girls at all, being female and all, but W00T!!!! Romanoff as my rep instead of the invisible Mike??? Wonderful, wonderful. Can't wait.
CD6 is on the priority list for winning. Whoever wins the primary, if there is one, will have some good backing.
I stated that I would support Andrew Romanoff if he ran in my Congressional District previously. He's announcing that he will.He has the organization and fundraising ability to win. I honestly believe that he does care about common folk. His intellectual prowess has never been in question. I believe that he will win.I do support his candidacy.
Can you imagine the kind of pressure this puts on Coffman not to be an extremist Bachmann dipshit while serving this term? I'd be surprised if this political chameleon tossed a lot of red meat to his Tea Party base over the next two years. Even if Romanoff doesn't win, his presence almost automatically forces Coffman to serve as a less extreme Congressman.
I have known and supported Andrew longer than most and would love to support him in this race. But before I start giving money I need to know if he is going to run as a grown up this time. His commitment to not taking PAC money in the Senate race was cute, it was even noble, but it was a loosing strategy.
If this is a big-boy campaign this time, he can count on the max allowed from me (over time, I haven't hit it rich quite yet).
Thank you Dan. For me Roimanoff is one of the best public servants to hit Colorado in a very, very long time. I was one of the first to give him money in his US Senate Race. And I registered as a Democrat for the first and only time in my life to vote for him in the primary. I like him, a lot and wish I lived in the 6th so that I could vote for him.
But, alas, grow up Speaker Romanoff. Not taking PAC money makes you a non-serious, not-starter for a candidate. National Democrats will consider you too risky to take a chance on in their number one district. If you don't think Coffman will have $5M this time around, you are fooling yourself. You've got to get there to do anything about the terrible money in politics. Frankly, you're not going to like what they say to you and do to you. You have to have the money to fight back. Coffman is a tough, tough candidate. You're a tough, tough candidate too, but without the funds, there is only so much you can do.
Frankly, I'd be more likely to give my money to a little bit lesser candidate who'll take the money (Linda Newell and Morgan Caroll) and win than go with you as someone who I know will be an outstanding candidate and even better legislator, but who won't take the money.
Get real, or get dumped.
Long time lurker and this is my first post. Looks like Andrew won't be taking PAC money.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/02/02/andrew-romanoff-to-run-for-6th-congressional-district-seat/89994/
I am saddened by this. I had hoped he would run to win.
Ideals are lovely but they do not win elections. Someday that may change, but that is t wold we live in, like it or not.
I think it not very practical, but it is going to be one hell of a contrast with where Coffman gets his $. AR is starting now, he is energetic. I think he ought have time to get to every door numerous times from now to 11/14. If he can get enough $ for lit to leave behind and TV in the last month …
Well Andrew had better know where he's getting a ton of non-pac money. I want a Dem Rep. not a holier than thou statement candidate.
+12
Absolutely no one outside this web site cares about that. Especially when you're going to be in the Mike Coffman range ($5-7M) and not the iCarly range. Coffman knows how to do it but not overdue it. Whoever is there needs to be able to keep up.
Let me say up front that I agree he should take PAC money. But, having said that, I don't think it is such a death to a congressional race as it would be for a senate race. How much did he raise in the senate primary? A little under a couple million? How much will it take to win this race? A couple million, right? So, he should be okay, especially once he gets by the primary. If my numbers are off, I welcome a correction.
But still, I wish he would take PAC money.
A couple of million won't do it. He's essentially running one-half a Senate race here in Colorado since his media market (Denver) covers more than one-half the state. In addition, this is the number one target on everyone's list so the spending will be big. With so few Congressional seats in the toss-up category, the Republicans will spend $5M or more. Can Andrew raise it without PAC money? I think not.
Even in a perfect world, not taking PAC money is a stupid move. There's time, I would think, for Andrew to rethink his position. Please Andrew – "only fools never change their mind".
CD6 is a want to own by the Dems. There is money, but it will not go the the holier-than-thou who spot Coffman a million plus dollars. This is a major fight, and the Koch bros will spend a lot ot keep Coffman in the seat. If the candidate who runs against Coffman plays games the big backers will not be here.
Two thoughts about money, the Internet has changed the money game and, this time, Romanoff will not be fighting the whole weight of the Obama Organization. A principled stand against "big" money could be very appealing to "Independent" and swing voters and a well-run campaign can raise piles of "clean" money from "real people" via the Internet.
Whoever becomes the Democratic Candidate will have ample money for the General Election in this highly competitive district, and a strong candiate will cause the District to be smothered in previously unimaginable amounts of money in this post-Citizens United world.
In this battleground Congressional contest, Romanoff's residual campaign organization should be able to raise the money he needs to raise, at the only point in time that it really matters in this case and that, of course, is right now.
Bake sales, and passing the hat may work for PTO and maybe even school board.
Absent R-disaster he's going to need $2.5mm. +
How would you count DCCC money?
There is no clean/dirty money. There is, however, a way to win and way not to. I strongly prefer te former.
I wonder if even $2.5 million will be enough — if he has to go through a tough primary, and then the national GOP comes in to strongly defend Coffman, who knows how high the tab could go.
I would think Romanoff will game out the various budget strategies and get a realistic plan in place. Maybe leverage OFA, and national email lists, as well as tapping into his own network.
No doubt, an uphill climb unless he can get some of Obama's team on his side. He's got a few months to think it over and lay the foundation for his funding needs.
I say again, bull shit. Independents don't care about this shit. Name me one candidate outside of the California billionnaires who has lost because they over-spent.
I'm in.
Unless/until he proves he's not serious about winning.
I may even form a PAC to donate to his campaign.
If he unilatterally disarms- that will prove hes not serious.
OK. If anyone on Romanoff's team reads this blog, I invite you to explain to us your realistic plan to raise enough funds to to get this thing done without pac money. As you can see, many are concerned about joining the fight if the candidate is going to be seriously handicapped. I know this is high on the DCCC list of winnable R seats. What will the DCCC think about funneling big bucks into this campaign in light of the proposed funding restrictions?
All of us long time CD6 volunteers have spent too many cycles banging our heads against the wall to be willing to devote time and energy for another miss because our candidate is bringing a knife to gun fight. There just isn't enough available in the universe of small donors to a CD campaign to accumulate the war chest we need to win this thing.
So please, members of team Romanoff, explain to us why this won't be a problem. And no platitudes about all the little people phone banking and canvassing being enough if we all push together really really hard, click our heels in our ruby slippers, wish upon a star, keep the faith, etc.. We've been there, done that, and it isn't enough without the hard cash..
Don't forget Andrew will have Ken Gordon!
Oh, Joy.
Will this allow his campaign to self fund?
Why…is Ken "steenkin'" rich? I didn't know that about Ken.
My message was facetious, MADCO.
The only thing worse than unilaterally disarming is unilaterally disarming and calling the other guy bought and paid for despite the fact that you took PAC money and had your own PAC for many years (as Romanoff did in his race against Bennet).
I guess I will have to be the one who sticks up for Andrews' intention to forego certain money sources. In todays' politics, a small group of funders can compensate for practically any financial disadvantage one might encounter. Andrew does indeed have many well-to-do friends, colleagues, and admirers. We are post-CU.
This is not to argue with all the comments above…very astute observations by many seasoned veterans of getting people elected. I just want us not to forget, if he has adequate funding, the value of the current (and growing) emphasis on populism, and the optics of the moment.
If, as some suggest, Andrew has very deep pockets at his disposal, this may just turn out fine. I find it difficult to believe the Romanoff campaign hasn't also gone through the mental wrangling above… it will be interesting to see what is Andrews' reponse to the response.
In any event, I would love to have a conversation, just now, with Mike Coffman…
Probably most of CD6 would like to know who Coffman is in a town hall setting.
To PAC or not to PAC. It's a really good question. If you take money from PACs you end up owned by Wall St like Udall & Bennet where they vote the interests of the banks first and can only vote the interests of the people of Colorado when Wall St allows it.
On the flip side, if you don't take the money you could well lose.
So which is better?
David, just to be clear, not every PAC is from Wall St. The company I work for has a PAC. I don't consider my company evil, and it happens to also lean Democratic.
Very true.
But the system as a whole does bring pervasive soft corruption and most of the money and thereby most of the influence is Wall St, Hollywood, pharmaceutical, and other industries with a ton of money.
My point being that it doesn't necessarily have to be an all or nothing choice.
Of course, when explaining anything to reporters or the public, nuance is rarely appreciated, and prone to distortion by opponents.
It is easy to notice the depth of feelings about the issue of taking or foregoing PAC money. Some of my favorite posters differ with me here, so with respect, I will submit..
It is common knowledge and supported by facts that the candidate with a much bigger supply of money almost always wins…but not always..miracles happen
, so I ask…are we condemned to an ever escalating battle to see who can divert the most money to media and political activity? Is there really no way out? How does it end and when?
I think it will not change until those candidates that refuse to accept corporate, union, and PAC money win… consistently. Andrew, along with Stan Garrett , Buddy Roemer, and a few others have tried and lost. Those are the candidates, however, who actually will change the system. How do we get them elected? I hear you when you say candidates with name recognition problems need equal or better money to win.
Andrew doesn't have that disadvantage. A couple of Daddy Warbucks types and he is set. Andrew…talk to us.
And to harrys' point…It is a "political action committee" supporting a special interest. Even though I have my own, well known, special interests…it is undeniable that is the purpose of a PAC…or any sort of organizational political funding.
I would like to see money de-emphasised in our body politic. I support Andrews' decision ..Pollyanna that I am..and I hope he can raise enough money to win. He is a great leader, a truly good man. He deserves our full support. (End of campaign commercial)
* paid for by DukePAC for a Better Government.
Without PAC money, it'll take a heck of a grassroots, nation-wide fundraising team. We'll see how many friends in high places Andrew really has.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few step up to support him — but it'll be a few months before any of that gets in place.
What is Pat Caddell advising Andrew to do about PAC money.
Ouch! It must smart every time someone brings up Caddell. Not exactly a glowing symbol of moral and ethical superiority.
I guess I just have a low tolerance for holier than thou posturing. If Romanoff doesn't have to take PAC money because he has a few Daddy Warbucks in his corner, what really is the difference? PACs want influence but individuals don't? PACS are all evil but individuals are all idealists? I mean, what?
At this stage, I'm not wasting time on a campaign that isn't prepared to do everything in it's power and by the rules to win my CD. Miklosi did his job. He got us close enough, for the first time in CD6 history, to make a takeover next time possible. So that's done. We don't need to do it again. We need the candidate who can take us over the damn hill.
If Romanoff's top priority is anything other than being that candidate we'd better find out right now because the Rs aren't going to give this CD up without a hell of a fight. It's finally winnable and we have to know now whether we're going to need a different candidate to do it. Still waiting for a response here from team Romanoff.
BC: Usually I'm with you. This time I'm so with you.
Like Duke above, I would like to see political races get out from under the burden of money–and the burden of influence that money implies. But we still live in the pre-overturn of Citizens United. If anybody thinks the Repubs and their allied teaparty PACS are going to let Coffman (even with his total lack of congressional significance or intellectual importance) be brushed quietly into the dustpan, they're seriously mistaken.
For a House race, this is going to attract a record amount of outside money. Whether or not Andrew's campaign receives an adequate share of this outsider support will depend on whether he is able to raise a credible amount himself. I don't know. Does he have a sugar daddy/momma? A $3,000,000 house to sell? Will we, in desperation, overturn all our couch cushions to support him? That depends. Just for now, just for seed money, I'm willing to look under the cushion in my rocker. But until I see how he manages his campaign, I'm in a wait and see mode.
If Andrew shows he intends to run a realistic race and is in it to win (that is, Andrew, influencing, by whatever legitimate means, the majority of voters in CD-6 to vote for you!), not just to be a show horse for his friends' entertainment, I'm for him.
I didn't actually say this, BC, as I don't see a difference between one funding source or another when it comes to non-candidate or non-party financing.
One the one hand, you have a candidates' grassroots campaign funding which, I think it is safe to say, is less focused on single issues…more on the candidate personally. The nature of the small, individual donation is that it usually can't buy the kind of access, or influence, that is inherent in the clout imbued by the six figure donation. I don't need to tell anyone here how important access to a candidate is…
On the other hand, you have a PAC, union, corporation, and now, post Citizens United, individuals who have a single issue (maybe just cause they think the candidate is groovy, granted) or narrow POV to push. Like it or not…Big Money buys access…and often influence.
It's just big donor small donor dynamics to me….
but just now I am exhausted from my labors.. If I am babbling and incoherent, forgive me…I will check in after I get some sleep.
And what I'm saying is, there has to be big money from somewhere or we don't win.
This is one of the few races that aren't a lock for one party or the other. For a race like this, one of those that will be fought not just in a little old CD but by all the forces both sides can bring to bear in a death match battle for the House, the universe of available small donors isn't going to be enough. Period. Sorry.
I'm not arguing about what is more desirable. I don't disagree with your principles. I'd love a world in which influence buyers are less integral to campaign financing. I'm simply recognizing here and now reality. Ignoring it doesn't work very well. For instance, much has always been made of Obama's tons of small donors and they were a huge factor. But he didn't get to be the first African American President with small donors alone. Don't kid yourself. That's all I'm sayin'.
No disagreement on that,,,sadly.