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%
September 14, 2009 05:59 PM UTC
78 Comments
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
(i particularly like this response to that statement)
(well it is true that i am a propagandist on Climate Change Legislation)
If people will click through to that exchange, they’ll see I was responding directly to a different claim of yours, patting yourself onthe back about the impeccability of your work. It stands to reason, however, that you couldn’t get even pull off this little smackdown in an honest manner.
And yes, Wade, you like to make vague, unverifiable claims and you have a history as a particularly inept propagandist. These two things are true. Own them.
that you are continuing to attack my credibility after I just proved here that my source was true and reliable and your attacks were not?
“it’s inconceivable!”
For instance, you have been repeatedly lying about Bennet’s health care position. Then today you took my response to your claim that you had once showed “people” were rising up for your Draft Romanoff clusterfuck (when I showed you were only able to come up with one guy) and liberally copied & pasted to claim I was responding to your leak. That’s dishonesty, which is all I expect from you.
Actually this was my response to your leak:
Well, your leak was spot on, Wade. Well done. I guess this makes up for your purity trolling, record distortion, water carrying, accusing rsb of being a sockpuppet, and terrible formatting.
Don’t forget to complain about this one too: http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
your attack and my response that day also included the earlier posts where you accused me of making up
“support” for Andrew because I would not name any elected officials who supported Romanoff openly –
so I had to get permission to post the House Majority leader – Paul Weissmann’s vocal support,
just to put you at ease?
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
and still you attack credibility?
fine. you win.
I am making it all up.
Andrew has no support, he is not running, and I don’t have any real sources.
wah…
Sorry for the interruption guys, y’all can go back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Actually, I’ve never met your mother, or you, for that matter. But if this is Poop on Wade Norris Day on pols, I just felt I should say something… 😉
Poop on Wade Norris Day around here, except when David Sirota shows up.
http://www.squarestate.net/dia…
Even though the diary is an argument against Romanoff running in the first place, it brings up some interesting questions now that Romanoff is for-sure in the race:
1. Why is he running?
2. How will he differentiate himself from Bennet?
3. Will grassroots be enough to carry Romanoff through? Will he end up like Mike Miles, and if he does, will his political career be placed on hold even longer than it would have been had he sat this one out?
4. If he does lose, will he lose graciously and endorse Bennet, and will his supporters go on to vote for Bennet in the general?
5. Will his supporters (whatever their reasons for supporting him) take it personally like they did with Miles, or will the party come out stronger?
And it puts aside all the emotional rhetoric and really asks the hard questions–I’d be very interested to see how Wade and compadres respond to such a rational point by point discussion that raises some serious issues and doubts about this run. (I can guess but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.)
I strongly suggest folks read the whole post, particularly the last few paragraphs that talk about the potential damage to down ticket Democratic races as a result of a primary race that drags out until the end of next August. Strange to think that a former Speaker of the State House may be the very person to undo a whole lot of what is considered his finest work–aiding in returning the State House to the Democratic Party.
http://www.squarestate.net/dia…
Colorado Pols’ break down on Rasmussen
More…
and…
All other issues aside – Bennet is being outpolled by someone no one really knows – and despite his fundraising numbers, Jane Norton will be ready money wise.
All issues aside – we need a democrat that can keep the seat.
Without those, you don’t have an argument, yet, Wade.
And please do address the last point Stygius made in his diary. Your response to his thoughtful diary lacks substance and indicates that detailed analysis is beyond your grasp.
yes, you can say without numbers my claims merit no argument,
but this is a blog right?
so for the sake of the ‘argument’ that does not exist…
Are you willing to make a prediction on Romanoff’s numbers?
Will you bet that they will be worse than Bennet’s?
would anyone here take that bet?
name yourself, so we can document it for the day when the polling does come out.
You see, this is the difference between you and I–you pulls figures and numbers out of your ass. I wait for facts.
I would hope, for your sake and for Romanoff’s “awesome name recognition” that he would poll much better than Bennet at this point in the game. And I still don’t find a poll to be a compelling enough reason for a primary so again, I would ask you to address the four points outlined in Stygius’s diary. If you can…
are you afraid that if you openly guess at a prediction that you will be proven wrong?
takes guts huh.
as for Stygius’ wonderful diary and points, Andrew will respond to those, I don’t have to.
so your prediction?
Hopefully, you will learn that someday. So no. I will not “predict” or as it is more commonly known, pull a random number out of my ass.
And since when are you so gutless than you can’t respond to a diary that is clearly right up your brilliant alley? Now you need to let Andrew respond? You can’t, all by your little self, form a few thoughts and respond? Wow. That is sad. If you are what passes for a progressive these days, the movement is in serious trouble.
upthread with TB
you can see that all the accusations about ‘making shit up’
were wrong before as I proved, after time, that I was speaking the truth.
and the truth here is you won’t say whether or not Romanoff will poll better or worse than Bennet.
I say Romanoff will poll much better.
what say you?
Learn to read. And then move on.
This isn’t a particularly awesome time to be an elected Democrat who strongly supports healthcare reform in most moderate states. Despite what many Romanoff supporters believe, Colorado is still a purple state. Washington isn’t too popular with a lot of moderate/indi voters these days. Demo Senators around the country are facing difficult poll numbers and re-elections in ’10. I believe the tide will turn once we actually get meaningful healthcare reform passed.
So, my point is that Roma supporters are pointing to the Rasmussen survey to mean that a) Bennet isn’t a strong candidate for the general ergo Andrew will be better. I’d be seriously curious to know what Andrew’s numbers would be at were he the sitting Senator right now and what his actual hypothetical match-up numbers are. Are we really to believe that Andrew’s numbers would be seriously higher than Bennet? Why? How would he be handling things better or differently than Senator Bennet?
these ‘woulda coulda shoulda’ questions about Romanoff don’t really address Bennet’s vulnerability in either the primary or general.
I do believe that Andrew would not have joined the Centrist coalition right off the bat.
can you say with a straight face that Andrew wouldn’t have joined the centrist coalition? Because he is such a lefty D? Seriously? You have looked at his record in the State House haven’t you? So, we forget all of that and now he becomes the champion of liberals everywhere?
No, it’s not just bad luck for Bennet, it’s reality and it matters to the conversation. Michael has put himself up front and center in supporting healthcare for months now. Andrew would be facing the same difficult mood of the electorate were he in office. Regardless, you still haven’t addressed how you can be just certain that Andrew’s numbers are higher anyways.
i don’t want to get personal with anyone else here.
time will show where the numbers are,
and the primary will give us all the opportunity to push the candidates to take stands on issues.
That I agree with. Realistically though, I think that as the economy starts to recover and after health care reform is passed and other legislative priorities are passed, you’ll see a recovery in polling numbers for Democrats. It’s an enternity between now and next November.
My point about Bennet is not whether he’s stronger or not against a Republican. I just think we now have a choice and we should be able to choose the candidate we want, someone we’ve known, liked, and followed for years and who has benefitted our entire state tremendously. That person is Romanoff.
Wade will make some up.
people who post here have the perception that I
“make stuff up” even though it can be demonstrably proven that my claims are factual.
but perception is not fair, for instance, even though Michael Bennet was talking up his support for the public option, he did not release a video of his statements of support until after Romanoff’s rumored primary was leaked.
that left people like Kos, Rachel Maddow, the Denver Post, Colorodo Pols, and average voters with the perception that Bennet was trying to
change positions because of the primary.
It might not be true, it might not be fair, but that is the perception of the people.
Honestly, if you think that the “average voter” is even aware yet that Romanoff is running, or was 24 hours ago anyway… well, then I guess you’re wrong about that.
I’m looking forward to the primary contest, though.
I can see absolutely no point in supporting centrist Romanoff against centrist Bennet other than the fact that I too was really ticked off and disappointed when Bennet got it and Andrew was kicked to the curb in the first place.
Since we don’t have access to a time machine and there is no reason to believe that Romanoff will triumph or that, if he did, Senator Romanoff would be much different from Senator Bennet, I just don’t see the point.
The passion of Miles supporters made much more sense since Miles really did represent a much more liberal choice than centrist Salazar. Bennet and Romanoff present no such choice. “I should have been the one in the first place” is not my idea of a reason for bucking Bennet now.
The main reason to vote for Andrew is that he’s the people’s choice. He’s someone we know, like and want. Whether he’s like Bennet or not is irrelevant.
The people’s? Really? Well, I’m one of the “people” and I want Bennet so speak for your fucking self. And where he stands on the issues is completely relevant. My God, the sycophants arguments for why we need Romanoff grow increasingly shallow when exposed to the light of day and basic facts.
The reality is that there is now and will be likely very little daylight between the candidates on issues. But that’s not the issue–it’s about ability, history, and connection with the Democratic Party base.
I challenge you to go outside the warmth and cocoon of this blog to actually speak with Democratic activists and other non-activist Democrats and find more than 5 who are supporting Bennet. That’s a fact. Polls, when they are done, will prove this out.
It’s not about being a sycophant for Andrew, it’s called support. I had a party with about 20 Democratic activists in SE Denver last Saturday, and all of them support Andrew. How’s that for a straw poll?
and I hate to break bad news to you but half the folks I have spoken with think a primary is just about the worst idea ever and fear we are going to end up losing this seat because of it. How’s that for a straw poll? About as reliable as yours, wouldn’t you say? Maybe Denver loves Romanoff but once you all break out of your little cocoon and move to the other 63 counties, you might just find out that support isn’t quite so strong.
FALSE Statement.
If anything, this primary gets the base energized for all levels of the ticket in a non-presidential election year. The money spent on the primary will be worth it as an investment in getting Bennet’s name out there just as much as Andrew’s. Whoever wins the primary, Democratic voters will support him, I’m sure of it (myself included).
you state things as fact without an ounce of proof to back up your assertions. No wonder Stygius’s diary is so confounding to you folks.
Most of my activist friends and associates plan to support Bennet and take a dim view of the Romanoff campaign/extended tantrum. And I’m talking about grass roots, boots on the ground, phone calling, contributing, event attending “people”. But we’ll see, won’t we?
Agree with Middle that who is more in the cocoon here is highly questionable. I certainly don’t get all my info here. I get it through the Dem events I attend and my network of activist contacts, a few of whom have close access to real players. Not pretending that I do but I have a well connected source or two outside of this nice warm blog.
like those we have responded to in this diary do not really get beyond Denver city limits. And worse, they don’t understand how diverse this state is as are the Democrats in it. It was the same way back in Illinois–the universe revolved around Chicago and Springfield and most Illinois politicians couldn’t find or be bothered to visit any other part of the state…until election time. And then by God, they remembered the other 96% of the state. But the folks that were “in the know” in Chicago and Springfield were bordering on delusional in regards to the needs of the rest of the state and how voters felt about just about everything and anything.
And let’s not forget one other very important point–Romanoff didn’t even have to run an actual campaign where he lived–I remember him telling me that himself–that his district was so firmly behind him that it freed him up to work on the House Majority project and get out and campaign for other house candidates (this was back in 2004.) I greatly appreciated that he knew that his district was a lock and he took that opportunity and parlayed it into assistance for other Dems. I still love him for it.
On the down side of that, Romanoff has never really had to run for office any more than Bennet has and I can assure you that for years Larimer County Dems begged him to come to our annual County dinners and he couldn’t be bothered. Interesting how he is suddenly making the time and the rounds now–when he has his eye on the Senate seat.
Romanoff has spent his political life so far in the safety of the blue cocoon, if we’re going to talk about cocoons. We haven’t seen him in a tough race. He might be too thin skinned and touchy. He might have too much of a false sense of entitlement. Sure looks that way .
and i can confirm rural support in
Canon City, the Plains, the Western Slope, Greeley,
with support around 8 to 1 for Romanoff over Bennet…
Thanks Wade and Paul for your solid internal polling numbers. Who was the polling firm that put those numbers out one more time? “Bullshit Research Inc.” or “Convenient Things We Make Up and Co.” Wow, those outfits even make firms like PPP look good.
because he’s the people’s choice! Oh. Can’t argue with that, huh?
Seriously, some people need to step back and listen to themselves.
In the end, no one needs to have a reason that Sen. Bennett has “failed” anyone, as the article you quote seems to suggest. After all, in a Democratic country, I just don’t see how “Ritter picked him” is any kind of a reason to assume that he’s the default choice for the job, anyway. BUT, if the campaign does end up being about a sense of entitlement for Andrew Romanoff, then it will look fairly petty. I have a lot of respect for Romanoff, and to his credit, I don’t think that is what his campaign will be about. I don’t think this will be a primary like Lamont/Leiberman, where the main issue is anger at someone’s betrayal of his party; and assuming it’s not, then I think we’re definitely in a better position for having the contest in place.
At the moment, I really don’t have a position in this one. I really like both of the pair; I see them both as very pragmatic legislators who are not “moderate” as a brand, but just like to think things through, think for themselves, and reach a variety of conclusions. In other words, I’d be proud to have either of the two as a senator.
but I’m off to make a living. Talk amongst yourselves Wade and Paul. Preaching to the choir is fun, fun, fun!
I think that’s the most telling part of all.
I didn’t see too many people addressing Stygius’s points, either. I hoped for better but saw the responses I pretty much expected and from the usual suspects.
1. Why is he running?
Andrew of course speaks for himself, but clearly this is a man who has really dedicated much of his time, effort and life to making Colorado a better place to live and do business. He has the passion for public life which all of us who have known him for some time have seen firsthand. It has been also clear that ever since his days on the DNC that national issues were critical to not just the world and our country function but how we live our lives here in Colorado.
2. How will he differentiate himself from Bennet?
Romanoff is the people’s choice. From the feedback from 5,000 people that the Governor solicited, to ProgressNow’s poll, to the man and woman on the street, it has always been clear that he is the person who should have been chosen. Why do all these people believe this? It is because Romanoff has actually been in leadership in a legislative capacity, crafted legislation, worked across the aisle but didn’t sacrifice Democratic values. His collegial but strong leadership skills were crucial to the passage of Ref C. As a long-time Coloradan and as a widely traveled Speaker, he knows intimately how this state ticks, thinks, and breathes. Bennet doesn’t have that support, that legislative experience or leadership or knowledge of the state.
3. Will grassroots be enough to carry Romanoff through? Will he end up like Mike Miles, and if he does, will his political career be placed on hold even longer than it would have been had he sat this one out?
Yes, the grassroots now is totally different than with the Salazar/Miles race. The vast majority of activists prefer Romanoff and he will win big at the caucuses and state convention. Bennet will have to spend a lot of money to get his name on the ballot via the petition process, and he’ll have to pay for staff to work on his campaign because as I mentioned, most of the activists will work tirelessly for Romanoff.
4. If he does lose, will he lose graciously and endorse Bennet, and will his supporters go on to vote for Bennet in the general?
This is a silly question. If there is one word that describes Romanoff to a “T”, it’s that he’s “gracious”. He will actively encourage all Dems to support Bennet if he loses.
5. Will his supporters (whatever their reasons for supporting him) take it personally like they did with Miles, or will the party come out stronger?
The party will actually be the stronger for this primary. This will really activate the base, get them excited in a non-presidential year when many of them are not pleased with the Governor, and get them really excited up and down the ticket. As mentioned earlier, Romanoff has such cross-over appeal to R’s, U’s, and D’s, that his support will put him over the top in the general election.
If Romanoff loses the primary, do you (and his other supporters) vow to support Bennet wholeheartedly?
We’re Democrats, and there’s too much at stake not to support the nominee. I hope Bennet supporters feel the same about Romanoff when he wins.
I can only speak for myself. Just as you can only speak for yourself. So, speaking for myself, whoever wins the primary has my full support–not lukewarm, but full, including my time and my dime. This seat is far too important in the larger scheme of things to hold a grudge. If we ant to move forward a more progressive agenda, we cannot afford to lose a Democrat in the Senate. Period.
Bennet’s actually a good senator, in my view. He’s like one of my favorite wines, an any-year Rosemount Shiraz.
It’s just that in my opinion, Romanoff would be better, like a 1949 Chateau Lafite Rothschild.
I actually like PBR, so your metaphor goes right over my head.
However, I like both guys too.
Likability isn’t my idea of a good reason to elect someone to anything but Miss Congeniality.
He’s the People’s Choice!!!
of your rhetoric.
http://coloradoindependent.com…
… except for John Salazar, John Hickenlooper, Ed Perlmutter, Federico Pena, Diana DeGette, and a half dozen others who scored better than Romanoff on different measures.
Romanoff was apparently just fine with Ritter’s choice — until his deal to get appointed to another plum job fell through.
You are bitterrr.
Andrew seems always had his eye on being a US Senator. The fact that the governor didn’t extend him an offer of a job isn’t Romanoff’s fault.
As for popularity, as I said, the governor requested that people let him know who they wanted, and they resoundingly said Andrew.
As I said, I have no problems with Bennet; it’s just I like Romanoff better.
Not bitter, and, frankly, I’d be as happy with Romanoff as I would be with Bennet. But the rationale for Romanoff’s candidacy seems to boil down to his perceived snub — which he could have swallowed if he’d gotten another good job! But since he didn’t, there’s plenty of revisionist history going on, including your conclusion Romanoff was the people’s choice. I don’t disagree Bennet came out of no where, but Romanoff wasn’t the only leading candidate — far from it.
For me, not at all. Romanoff and Hickenlooper were my favorites to fill the seat. The governor chose neither. Romanoff is now running for senate, so one of my favorites will be on the ballot. So, how does my decision relate to a snub? If someone wants to run for office, it’s a free country, they should be able to.
Also as I said, this primary will be good for both Bennet and Romanoff. They’ll both get lots of great press, and I can assure you neither one will say anything remotely as bad as has been said on this website.
is good. However, your predicting on #3 that Bennet will have to get on the ballot via the petition process with only two candidates in the democratic field?
Bennet would only need 30% at the state convention to get on the primary ballot right?
My guess is it would be about 60%-40% Romanoff with the insider dems. That would get both on the primary ballot.
I think we should maybe be a little patient and hear Andrew Romanoff’s reason.
I think any sane person acts exactly the way Andrew Romanoff did. Ritter appointed someone else as Senator, he accepted that. He weighed his options, looked for other positions of public service, some of which might not have worked out, so in the end, he decided to try his hand at being a Senator after all. So now we’re going to have an election, which is the normal democratic process for deciding who gets a job as a senator.
I just fail to see the problem here. Why should any of this reflect poorly on Romanoff? Should we feel better about Romanoff had he gone around badmouthing Sen. Bennett before he even had a legislative record to look at?
Not exactly. In fact he left town in a monumental snit immediately. Understandable to be sure. Clear since then that no matter what he’s offered or what his options have been, the rage of Romanoff can only be satisfied by running against Bennet. That’s what this is about. Noble hero bowing to the Voice of the People my ass.
Would have loved it if the choice had been Romanoff, mind you. It wasn’t. Doubt it will be now. Would like to think he wouldn’t have proven to be such a dick if not for the sense of betrayal and would have made a fine Senator. But no good reason, for anyone other than Romanoff and his biggest fans, to change Senatorial candidates at this point.
So now, in addition to
we also have
Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views of what Romanoff’s response was, and you both seem to think your opinions are obvious enough to not need evidence… so, again, I don’t see a real problem.
without going into specifics that he WAS offered a plum job without offering evidence. I just can’t help myself. I know I’m being a pain in the ass. But whatever. If you think Romanoff should run, your entitled to your opinion.
Not at all. I’m in absolute agreement with BlueCat’s recollection. Romanoff was “apparently just fine” with the appointment in the sense he didn’t declare his campaign to overturn it until he was unable to leverage a better job. There is ample evidence he didn’t publicly protest the Bennet appointment at the time, just as there is ample evidence he left town in a snit.
Several commentators here suggest that Mr. Romanoff needs a compelling reason to challenge Sen. Bennet.
I disagree.
Why is it inappropriate for a politician to simply argue that he or she is a better choice, for whatever reason, for that public office? And when did we reach the point that an appointed U.S. Senator, with no previous record of elected public service or work on behalf of his party, should become immune from a challenge by a guy who played a key role, if not THE key role, in returning statehouse control to his party?
Andrew Romanoff might not win the primary. But he had a credible – some would say convincing – case to be appointed to Salazar’s seat in January and he has the same credible arguments to make to the Democratic party’s base now.
Those who say he should not try are essentially arguing that Bennet, because he got appointed, should not face intra-party competition. They couch it in terms of “well, Bennet and Romanoff are both centrists, so what’s the difference?”
The difference, if Romanoff wins the primary, is that he, unlike Bennet, would be the choice of his party to run for the seat against Ms. Norton or Mr. Buck or Mr. Wiens or whoever the GOP puts up. And that is no small thing, and it’s something Sen. Bennet cannot say right now.
Bill Ritter’s preference is not necessarily the same as the Colorado Democratic Party’s preference, and since we live in a democracy . . .
Romanoff’s reasons for running are incredibly important.
What you are advocating with this post is that there should be a primary with a generic D candidate for Bennet. Arguments that the primary nominating system itself is hardly “democratic” aside, I think your point is worth debating. What we are talking about is why Romanoff?
You say this isn’t about how they’re both centrists, but if that’s the case, what is it about? A popularity contest? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
But again, the whole point is moot because Andrew is definitely running. Like I said with my post that started this, my biggest concern right now is making sure this primary doesn’t cause more problems for the sake of saying “well, my guy won.”
I am a fan of Andrew’s, but not only is he going to have to convince me as to why he’d be a better senator than Bennet, but that there is a compelling reason for his candidacy. We can argue all day about the merits or dangers of a primary election against a fairly weak incumbent–or whether our US Senate appointment process is fair–but we must be aware that a massive inter-party fight right before redistricting is in no one’s best interest but the GOP.
People tend to get emotional about this issue above all others since the election. I can tell there’s a lot of resentment about Sen. Bennet, the process by which he was appointed, and the events that have transpired since his swearing in. There are one or two votes that even I disagreed with him on, but all in all I’d say that the arguments against Sen. Bennet are superficial. They are brought on by a mixture of resentment toward Bill Ritter, and I completely understand the place they come from.
What I am concerned about, and why I think that Andrew and his supporters need to be careful of how they treat this race, is threefold: first, historical precedent tells us 2010 is going to be a bad year for Democrats anyway; second, it’s important that Dems don’t balkanize themselves right before this election and hurt potentially weak state legislator races; third, we need to find a way to keep the Governor’s mansion from being turned over to (probably) Josh Penry.
You say that the people deserve a chance to choose between a man who was appointed, and a “…a guy who played a key role, if not THE key role, in returning statehouse control to his party?”
While I think whether Bennet is immune from a primary challenge is a moot point right now, my question for you is: should a rising star in the Democratic party whose
A)last attempt at a statewide election was defeated by 10%
B)has been mysteriously silent on major issues so as not to have had to stake out positions (unlike Sen. Bennet, though his detractors frequently accuse him of doing so.)
And…
C) hasn’t had to be put to the scrutiny of a single poll or fundraising report be risking the very majaority he worked so hard to put together in the first place?
Besides, if anyone deserves a primary for primary’s sake, it should be Ritter. I mean, he’s broken more campaign promises than anyone. Why should the very man who messed up the appointment in the first place be immune?
I think Romanoff can run for any reason he wants. We’re a democracy.
Your point about why he is running is what we voters ask as we consider who to vote for.
I’m pondering whether or not voters will decide it’s a legitimate reason. And, IMO, if a candidate doesn’t have a real reason for running, then they’re toast.
As I said above, a primary is going to happen, I’m merely wondering why it’s happening.
I’m assuming Andrew is planning on addressing these concerns in his speech on Wednesday anyway. If he doesn’t then there will be a huge problem–and I don’t think we should have to figure it out for ourselves and then apply that to our decision on who to vote for.
You’re saying, RedStateBlues, that we have to assess and understand Romanoff’s reasons for wanting to go to the U.S. Senate before he should put his name on the ballot.
I think that’s backwards.
We use the primary campaign season to consider the arguments candidates put forth, including their reasons for running.
I think what you really mean to say, and in fact you do say it later in your comment, is that a primary might hurt the Democrats’ chances of holding the seat and even hurt the party’s hold on the General Assembly.
I doubt that, but even if you’re right it’s no reason to say that Romanoff, instead of Bennet, should be the one to bow out.
After all, Sen. Bennet has his job only because of Gov. Ritter. No voter has ever said that Bennet should be Senator. So why should he get the presumption in favor of staying on the primary ballot while Romanoff doesn’t?
On virtually every major issue. He’s supported the President, and the President’s agenda, and he’s done so while visiting every one of Colorado’s 64 counties. He’s held town hall meetings, and had to talk down angry protesters. He’s been on the front lines of the battle that’s been going on both in Washington and Colorado.
Where has Andrew Romanoff been? He’s been silent on the issues, and busy consolidating support in his bid for Senate–which he waited to announce for only after Bennet had raised nearly $2.5 million.
So yes, I want to know his reasons, and I think he should explain that clearly in his announcement spree.
I think what you’re really wanting to argue about is who is a better choice for US Senate. Why don’t you phrase it like that, instead of putting words in my mouth.
While Romanoff and other Democrats were working to rebuild the Colorado Democratic Party, Bennet was the managing director of Anschutz Investments making $250M for Mr Anschutz. Mr Anschutz was using his fortune to fund right wing causes and the National and Colorado Republican Party. I don’t know how Democratic primary voters get around these facts and support Bennet. If Romanoff runs a credible campaign, Bennet will pay dearly for his trip to the dark side.
And thanks for your answers to my questions earlier. You were the only one who sought it fit to answer them.
that the whole purpose of Andrew Romanoff running for Senate is that he thinks that Sen. Bennett “deserves” a primary challenge. To me, that seems like dysfunctional politics at its worse. If Romanoff thinks he can do a better job as a senator, let him run and prove it! Hell, if I thought I would do a better job as a senator, I’d run too. (As it turns out, I’m pretty sure I’d make a lousy senator.)
Where is the part where you say that Bennett’s reasons for running are very important, too? I’m a big fan of his, but he’s never actually explained to people in Colorado why he’d make a good Senator, either. So now both Romanoff and Bennet will do that, and we’ll have an election to decide.
What I object to is the stacking of the deck in advance… it’s as if some people here think Bennett would have to be shown to be a child molestor before Romanoff is justified in running. That’s simply not true. Andrew Romanoff can choose to run for U.S. Senate simply because he thinks it’s where his gifts are best used, and it doesn’t need to have anything to do with Michael Bennett.
I agree that his reasons are important as well, but he’s been working tirelessly to represent the people and the Democratic party in the Senate.
To me, Romanoff has more of a burden to prove his case because he’s done exactly nothing since A-59 was shot down by voters. If he had been out on the front lines, doing town halls, talking to people (not just consolidating support for a primary) then I would definitely agree with you.
But the fact of the matter is that Romanoff is risking a lot with this race–his reputation, and his own career to be sure, but he’s also risking things that a lot of other people have worked their butts off to create in this state. 2010 is going to be a pivotal year for Democrats, and “because he thinks it’s where his gifts are best used” is not going to cut it for me.
Like I said, he will probably answer all of these questions tomorrow, but it’s so much more layered than just Romanoff’s ego vs. Bennet’s perceived lack of hard work.
He’s not actually announcing a run for Senate. He’s announcing his engagement to me.