U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(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) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 11, 2009 07:49 AM UTC

FiveThirtyEight wonders about Bennet's strength

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Commenter

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

This may sound a bit subjective, but pseudo-incumbent Michael Bennet seems awfully unsure of himself, waffling on EFCA and angering his party base by joining the Blue Dog Congress. Although Colorado is a purple state, it is not a moderate state in the same way that, say, Ohio is. Rather, it contains roughly equal numbers of rather progressive Democrats and rather conservative Republicans. Bennet risks squeezing himself by being too far to the right of the primary electorate, while still being too far to the left to placate religious conservatives in Colorado Springs and Grand Junction. Moreover, as he’s never run for public office before, there is no guarantee that he’ll prove to be a competent candidate. Colorado is the one state, aside from Connecticut, where Democrats could potentially improve their lot with a primary challenge.

Nate Silver’s argument is sound enough, though he unfortunately doesn’t provide any polling or fundraising data to further support the argument that Bennet is vulnerable. But it is probably true that it’s still not too late for an intrepid Democrat to launch a primary bid. I think the smart money remains on Bennet to hold on to the seat. He’s been savvy in other ways, should have little trouble raising money, and has time (though not too much) to make a name for himself as a legislator and statewide candidate. It also helps that state Republicans still look dazed and leaderless, taking pressure of Bennet and Democratic party leaders.

One a scale of one to four (one being strong, four being weak) how strong/weak is Bennet:

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

29 thoughts on “FiveThirtyEight wonders about Bennet’s strength”

  1. but apparently this state is only entitled to one.

    Unless he switches parties, he won’t get a single vote from a Colorado conservative. So I don’t get his strategy. But hey, at least the CEOs like him. So he’ll get himself on TV, and isn’t that what all Senators really want?

    2. he won’t get a single vote from a Colorado conservative. So I don’t get his strategy. But hey, at least the CEOs like him

      Are you saying CEOs aren’t conservative? Granted, some aren’t (like me) but many are.

    3. He needs a very high percentage of Dems, a solid lead among indies and some moderate Rs. That’s what gets Dems elected statewide in Colorado. I’d say his chances of getting that, given a conservative R as an alternative (and what other kind is going to get past an R primary?), are pretty good. Of course stuff happens. I voted 2.

      1. I think he has got it.  Does anyone know if he has released or needs to release, soon,  the names of the donors for his first three months in office…that tells volumes….more than anything else…about his support…

        Money talks.  

        1. Of course that goes without saying.  Was just addressing sxp on the fact that he isn’t going to get a single conservative vote… No he’s not and so what as long as he gets the money and enough of the middle.  The sheer amount he’s collected suggests he’s not having much trouble with Big Money Colorado, doesn’t it?

  3. He is right that this is more an evenly divided state than a moderate state. But…

    1) When 45% always votes Dem and 45% always votes Repub, that small 10% moderate chunk becomes all-important. So the key remains appealing to that group.

    2) We have a significant libertarian-ish contingent here. Both parties ½ appeal to them. Getting their vote is also key.

    This upcoming election is going to be interesting. Both Ritter & Udall didn’t so much win their elections as their opponents lost them. I think in ’10 the GOP may (repeat may) run competent campaigners. And in that case we will get a better idea of where this state is.

    1. look at these stats from

      Democratic Barack Obama 1,288,568 53.66%

      Republican John McCain 1,073,584 44.71%

      there is the 45% R base represented, but it looks like Obama got the entire 45% of the Dem base plus 8% of the independents.

      Obama certainly motivated the base and the independents. The key here is that he really motivated the base.

      On the flip side, will Bennet be able to motivate and energize his 45% base in an off cycle election?

      From the look of things, it doesn’t seem like it. Now lets be clear, there are diehard dems like me,  and if he is the nominee, he’s got my vote, but will dem turnout be diminished?

      this quote


      Colorado is the one state, aside from Connecticut, where Democrats could potentially improve their lot with a primary challenge.

      highlights how the democratic base could be motivated.

      However, the R field is still pretty weak.

      (stats on 2008 from this link)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…

      1. you say: “Obama got the entire 45% of the Dem base plus 8% of the independents” and then go onto say “the key here is that he really motivated the base.” I don’t get the connection. Why, if Obama got his winning percentage from the independents, is motivating the base key? Obviously any candidate has to win their base, but that usually isn’t what pushes them over. Where is the evidence that is was a “motivated” base that won Colorado for Obama as opposed to “the base voted for him.”

        It seems that, with Michael Bennet, if he can get the base to vote for him, that’s all he needs from them. And is there really any question that the Democratic base will vote for Marc Holtzman, Scott McInnis, or Josh Penry? Doesn’t seem likely. More likely than not the 2010 Colorado senate race will be won or lost where most every other race is, in the middle.

          1. was, was does it matter if your base is “motivated” so long as they vote? As DavidThi88 said above, it doesn’t really seem to matter on the election, but it 45% of the voters in Colorado will vote Republican (what can be termed the Republican base), 45% will vote Democratic (Democratic base), and the race is won in that last 10%.

            The only case where “motivation” in the base matters is fundraising, but I think Bennet has already proved that he does well there.

            So again, why does Bennet need his base motivated? Or are you concerned that he actually might lost some of that 45% to a Republican candidate?

            1. If the Republican base is very motivated. If the Democratic base is unmotivated, then you have more Republicans than Democrats voting and that becomes a very hard thing for Bennet to win.

              Also factor in that in ’08 the Republicans in this state were very demotivated between the Bush depression, Schaffers self-imolation, and McCain’s lousy effort. And we Dems were very very motivated.

              So the ’08 numbers are the absolute best it can be for Bennet.

              1. then, clearly, I agree Bennet would have a problem. However I just have no indication that the Dems won’t come out to vote for Bennet. They may not be super excited, but there is still no reason why they won’t come out, thus giving us that 45/45 split you mentioned above.

                And if that is the case, then I think Bennet if making a very good play for that final 10%, despite whatever Nate Silver says.

                Is all I’m sayin’.

                1. Having worked on GOTV for any number of election cycles, I can tell you a large number of people don’t need a reason NOT to vote.  They need a reason to motivate them to go out and vote… and even then, there’s a 50-50 chance they’ll get around to it.  And that’s if they 100% agree with the policy positions involved.

                  1. I have worked “knock ‘n drags” and all the rest as well. However, you have to ask yourself, how fired up was the Dem base in 2004? Answer, not very, but we still managed to put Ken Salazar in the Senate. My only issue here is that many people seem to think that Bennet needs to inspire the base the way Obama does, which I think is false. Colorado elects Democrats from the middle, and if Bennet has to choose between a juiced-up base and the middle, he should choose the middle (a choice that I realize is a false choice, but it illustrates the argument).

                    1. I’d say our biggest problem in ’04 was while we had the base totally charged up, we didn’t sell the middle. Plus we had a really bad campaigner running for president.

                    2. Ken Salazar didn’t sell the middle? Seriously? Even after he, and the CDP gave the base a little bitch slap (i.e. shot down their favorite son Mike Miles on face)? If anything the Dem base was divided and shunned in 2004. KS never played for the base, he assumed that it would be given to him, and guess what? It was.

                    3. The base, here in Colorado and nationwide, was very charged up to defeat Bush. So yes, KS could ignore the base and they were going to vote against Bush and against Coors.

                      It doesn’t require the candidate to charge up the base, it merely requires something has charged up the base. But in ’10 it’s not a presidential ballot so it really does fall on Ritter & Bennet to charge up the base.

          2. Damn good thing Andrew is a heck of a lot smarter than some of the purists who seem to demand lock step allegiance to the far left as a condition of support for any Dem.  Perhaps they should think about the following:

            1) The battle is seldom for the base…it’s for the independents who don’t identify with either party.  Them’s the folks that are providing the margin of victory, them and the newly engaged who appear to be voting more against politics as usual than for Ds or Rs.

            2)  Anyone remember McInnis’ strength as an incumbent in such reputed Dem strongholds as Pueblo, where he did very well, thank you, in his later campaigns.  Maybe there are a few “conservadems” down in southern CO in addition to those in DC.

            3) My prediction for 2010 is for the strongest GOP effort in recent history given that it’ll either be the last gasp for the Rove wing before middle of the road Rs and business leaders find the backbone to retake their party.  Either that or it’s curtains for the GOP for a good long time in Colorado politics.

            Michael Bennet is doing exactly what he ought to be doing…raising money, meeting people all across the state on a regular basis and acting as a realistic Dem in the U.S. Senate rather than taking toward the far left that’ll never be satisfied anyway.

            Elections are no longer won out on the margins (just ask the GOP) they’re won in the middle.

  4. If his first quarter fundraising were low and he was not making much of an attempt to connect with voters then things may be different. However, the opposite is true. Bennet’s fundraising first quarter was excellent and he is attending lots of  functions connecting with groups of people (although Bennet would benefit with some minor detail changes) I attended the Wilderness Dedication in Estes last Thursday. Now, I know that there is a risk attempting to be someone who you are not, but, seriously. Bennet looked like he was attending a dinner/fundraiser downtown. There Sec. Salazar was with his cowboy hat, Udall with faded blue jeans and Bennet with his blue suit and blue tie.

    There is still grumbling out there from some of the die hard dems that are either still upset with Bennet being picked for the seat, joining the conservadems or not taking a strong position in favor of EFCA (like Polis and Markey have ). However, these are the same die hard dems that will fully understand that their vote is important to keep the majority in the Senate and keep Colorado blue. So, all this talk about the base not being excited about Bennet will be a moot point. The very people who are least in love with Bennet will be the very people he will be able to count on in 2010.

    There are good points posted above by Colorado posters.

    GOTV with dem base will be key to a victory in 2010. Absolutely. If dem base does not turn out atleast equally with the Repub base that could cause a Bennet loss.

    Making a connection with unaffiliated voters and getting the majority of Unf to vote for the dems side will be key to a victory in 2010. Absolutely. If D’s and R’s are equally successful in GOTV efforts, then this will definalely be the difference.

    Both are equally important. We can look at the Presidential and Senate races here in Colorado and learn from them.

    Udall won in 2010 by 10%. Why?

    1) Bush and his failed policies here at home and abroad.

    2) Republican Senator’s were not too appealing in the fall of 2008. We had one Republican Senator with a “wide stance” controversy and another one being investigated for wrong doing in Alaska.

    3) People were voting for CHANGE.

    4) Udall had/has name recognition in Colorado.

    5) Benefited from a popular Democratic Presidential candidate up ticket.

    6) Udall had a Republican Senate Candidate that was percieved as far right wing.

    7) The economy, unemployment, stock market ect… were in the dumps and democrats were perceived as the party that was most able to get us out of the mess. Republicans and their CEO/stock market buddies were percieved as the problem.

    8) Udall and staff ran a solid campaign.

    Bennet may not benefit from the political climate Udall had.

    1) Bush will have been gone for 2 years.

    2) Republican Senators may learn from the recent past and be on their best behavior.

    3) Dems hold Presidency, Senate, House of Reps., State Gov., State House and State Senate. So, the dems in Colorado will have to find other motivations.

    4) Bennet currently has very low name recognition.

    5) Obama will not be at the top of the ticket. How will Ritter do in top spot?

    6) How will the Republican Candidate be percieved? Too early to tell.

    7) Unemployment and the state of the economy will definately be a key factor in the campaign results of 2010.

    8) What will Bennet’s campaign look like?

    (not in any particular order. and I could have added several more)

    I need to start charging somebody for this stuff.

    My prediction right now:

    Bennet 53%- Frazier 47%

    Bennet 54- 46%Tancredo, Beauprez or Buck.

    Sorry for the long post.

     

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

176 readers online now

Newsletter

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