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
September 20, 2009 12:08 AM UTC

Romanoff vs. Bennet: Who Do You Like?

  • 123 Comments
  • by: harrydoby

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The collective wisdom on this blog all agree:  there is little ideological difference between former Speaker Romanoff and Senator Bennet.  And as has been endlessly discussed here, why then would a thinking person vote for a challenger who, in all expectations, would have virtually the same voting record as the incumbent?

Let me pose another question to our Polsters:  When was the last time you voted for someone you didn’t like?

The similarities between the two are striking:  both are virtually the same age (43 and 44, respectively), graduated from Ivy League schools (including Yale), are extremely bright and ambitious, and really want to be Senator.

While the typical risks of scandal, fundraising problems, lack of organizational skills, incompetent staff, etc. often determine the fortunes of most campaigns, I believe the one overriding difference between the two that will play an important role in deciding the winner is their difference in personal style.

Bennet has political smarts of the type gained in executive boardrooms, where one-on-one closed door agreements and small group, high-powered discussions and unpublicized rivalries dominate.  

He has the patrician air befitting his upbringing and earned position in life, but which also makes him seem older than his actual age (not a criticism, just an observation).  He is a truly engaging and charming man in small settings.  My impression is that he has strong opinions, but doesn’t feel the need to share them just for the sake of taking a position.  He either learned, or by instinct, keeps his cards held closely to his chest.  If a question is unlikely to be posed, then he is loathe to volunteer an answer as it could limit his options later.

Romanoff has political smarts of the more traditional politician — broad contacts and personal relationships gained over many years of campaigning for various issues that he or his allies passionately believe in.  He is comfortable in large groups, speaking passionately in both large and small forums.  In one-on-one discussions, his easy smile, wit and personal charm quickly win him friends.  He seems younger than his actual age (not a criticism, just an observation).

He is quick to tell you what he believes in, and will listen to opposing opinions and try to find common ground.  

I believe the race will turn on who burns the most shoe leather and presses the most flesh (or as MAH does, knock on the most doors).   Save the TV ads for the general election.  It will be who has the most troops on the ground and can energize the voters to get to the polls.  That takes patience, determination and most of all force of personality.

This is a long primary campaign.  Who will lose their cool, their sense of humor or charm first?

Would you vote for them in the primary anyway?

Poll added (but probably not the question you were asking for — that poll will be taken next year)

Who is more likely to lose their cool?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

123 thoughts on “Romanoff vs. Bennet: Who Do You Like?”

    2. … but not the obvious “Who would you vote for today” question.  The one who maintains an Obama-style cool will most likely win this race.

      However, if they both lose their cool, then the ‘pubs have a real shot at this seat.

        1. and to my fellow AR supporters,

          read me loud and clear here,

          attacking the President for getting involved in a primary is the wrong way to go. (I fully suspect there will be an Andrew Romanoff ‘rogue blogger’ that will soon be calling Obama out in a rather nasty tone on these blogs – I want it to be known here that these people DO NOT represent the Andrew Romanoff campaign and are merely trying to earn AR negative media.)

          The President has supported candidates this year who are the incumbents – as seen with supporting Arlen Specter.

          That’s just the way it is.

          But the President was supported by the grassroots which helped him win his Presidency, so it will be the grassroots who will put Sestak and Romanoff into office.

          It’s not personal, it’s politics.

          You can support Obama, and your primary candidate without going negative, so keep the debate focused on Romanoff vs Bennet, and leave the President out of it.

          1. How quickly politicians become irrelevant these days. Seems only a few months ago Obama was considered important!

            Also, Wade, when you write:

            … I want it to be known here that these people DO NOT represent the Andrew Romanoff campaign …

            does that mean you DO represent the Romanoff campaign?

              1. It sounds as though you’re speaking for the Romanoff campaign — or is it just that you have special insight into all the others who also don’t speak for the campaign?

          3. …I will assist you in identifying any “Andrew Romanoff rogue bloggers” on here.  I will know them by their shrill and negative commentary about Democrats like President Obama, Senator Udall, Senator Bennett, Governor Ritter, Secretary Salazar, etc.  I also notice that these rogues tend to talk a lot about “passion,” ownership of all the roots of the grass, and backfiring endorsements.  

            I will do my best to point out these AR-rogue bloggers, so that you can deal with them as best you see fit!

              1. Bennet, (and I am beginning to believe Obama,)  sees politics as a chess game.  He studies each move….questions,problems, etc.,  are just strategies of the opposition to be examined dispassionately……the only important part is to keep in the game….by any means possible…

      2. Though I would not say this of either man, to supporters on both sides this seems to be an “Entitlement Primary.”

        Many in Bennet’s camp think he is entitled to a pass for another 6 years.

        Many in Romanoff’s camp think he was entitled to the past 9 months, and more.

        Both candidates must prove that their policies make more sense than the claim to entitlement that motivates these supporters.

        Both candidates must also make sure that their own supporters actually support them in this effort, rather than continue the mindless dialogue about who “deserves” the seat.

        The question before the people of Colorado from here on out, is who can earn the seat.

  3. Cool was in last year.  This year it’s passion, and Romanoff clearly has that in spades.

    I was taught by some wise person a long time ago (probably in CILT), that many people don’t vote for a candidate because of a position on an issue.  Rather, they vote for someone because they like him and trust him.

    The fact of the matter is that Bennet is likeable and trustworthy, but Democrats in Colorado believe that Romanoff is more so.

    1. Seniority trumps passion in the United States Senate. Seniority is everything.

      Whether primary voters know a Romanoff win would at best pull Colorado back to being the lowest state on the senate totem pole remains to be seen.

      1. .

        20 months of seniority, poof, vanishing in an instant.  

        wait a minute: the only Senators that Bennett would have any seniority over are any newbies elected in 2010, and that’s probably only 1 or 2.  

        .

        1. Now there’s a fantasy.

          Harry Reid:  Gone

          Chris Dodd:  Gone

          Michael Bennet:  Gone

          George LeMieux:  Gone

          Arlen Specter:  Gone

          Roland Burris:  Gone

          Kay Bailey Hutchison:  Gone

          Ted Kennedy’s Inevitable Appointed Replacement:  Gone

          Ted Kaufman:  Gone

          Kit Bond:  Gone

          Sam Brownback:  Gone

          Jim Bunning:  Gone

          Judd Gregg:  Gone

          George Voinovich:  Gone

          So I count 14 seats that will more than likely change hands (not necessarily to the other party–but to a different person).  10 of those are virtually guaranteed by people retiring or just place-holding for a new election.

              1. …but I am pretty sure that the decision is not up to him.  He would lose a Democrat primary, and if he didn’t, god-willing, he’s pretty likely to lose the general.  His weakness is beyond politics.  Just like Republicans will never elect Mark Sanford to any post ever again, Democrats, I think, know better than to push a candidate who’s all tangled up with Blago.

                I think it’s more than likely Democrats will lose at least two of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Michael Bennet, and Arlen Specter.  It would be a dream come true to have them all chucked out, but it’s tough to tell exactly what the landscape will be 14 months from now.

                In any case, it is a good reason for Democrats to choose to keep Bennet.  12-15 spots on the ladder is a ton.

            1. …because there is no issue of seniority.  In the Senate, where that means absolutely everything, it’s a legitimate question.  Obviously I’m in the minority on this site in that I would prefer to see the generic Republican candidate elected most of the time over either Bennet or Romanoff.  But if a Democrat does win, I’d much prefer it be Michael Bennet, because at least that means when the Democrats come up with all these **great** new programs and start doling out earmarks, Colorado will benefit more than most.

          4. Seniority is so insider baseball.

            The question is, who do Colorado Democrats want long term, not who does the DNCC and their shoulder tap-meisters want?

            1. Seniority doesn’t HAVE to mean much of anything, but that’s the way congress works.  So when you have a senator with higher seniority, it’s easier for he or she to set an agenda that is more favorable to your state than it might be to another.  That’s true whichever party has power or whatever party your senator comes from.  Higher seniority = better for your state than lower seniority.  Hardly irrelevant.

        1. Actually it would be pretty unlikely for Romanoff to be ranked #100.

          Of the 14 seats currently in danger of changing hands or with announced retirements six are states smaller than Colorado (Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Kentucky).  Now Romanoff could still end up #100 if either the incumbent wins (Nevada and Connecticut) or the winner has previous incumbency in the US Senate, the US House of Rep, is a former President, Vice President, Cabinet Member, or Governor in every case.

          At the very least Romanoff will outrank whomever wins in Delaware since the Vice President isn’t going to suddenly run for his old job and none of the prospective candidates have the job history to take precedence over him.

          And then he’ll only stay at that rank if no one else retires or dies.  Given the constant churn of politics it is unlikely that he’ll stay at the bottom very long.

  4. As I’ve stated before on this fine website, I support Bennet because he doesn’t have a career politician background.  I think the United States can use a few more policy wonks with no political background and fewer politicians with wonk backgrounds…

    Nothing really against AR, but politics as usual is currently drowning this country!

    1. .

      far better for a Senator to be born filthy rich, to have all sort of strings pulled to get him into top schools and to get choice assignments, and to have experience working for the billionaire who trashed our phone service.

      What exactly did he do for Anschutz ?  As a “turn-around specialist,” he threw Americans out of their jobs in order to increase profitability.  

      Colorado doesn’t need a Senator in Washington, we already have one.

      But the poor, misunderstood Billionaires, all 600 of them, most of whom know Bennett on a first name basis, well they desperately need another Senator fighting for their rights.  They only have about 80 in their pocket right now.

      .

      1. Bennett is indebted to special interests and I resent the author’s assumption that Romanoff and Bennett are alike ideologically. Bennett has demonstrated to me he is living in the politics of the past and can’t be trusted to represent the people of Colorado but freely supports hand-outs to corporations. I also feel he is too inexperienced and knows little about economics.  He was also chosen by Ritter who I despise and my view of Obama is that he has shown very little in the way of leadership except to bend in favor of corporations.

        I’m still going to vote for a Democrat over a Republican but I’m all for kicking out the Democrats who favor corporations over citizens’ rights especially the corporate behavior that has brought us to our knees and will continue unabated if we sent politicians like Bennett to Washington.

        1. … Let me guess, a Democrat that intends to vote for Democrats, but hates all the current Democrats who signs up at 3 am today.

          Hmmm, you wouldn’t happen to be our favorite split personality Troll, would you?

          Nancy/Michael, welcome back!

          1. Just trying to say that I don’t like Bennett’s record and if we don’t get a public option I will be extremely disappointed in Obama. I’m already sick over the bailout of the banks and the giveaway to the banks but no help for the middleclass. Why are you pushing Michael Bennett? Why is he entitled to the Senate seat?

            And I didn’t sign up at 3:00 am just to answer your post. Not only did I not sign up at 3:00 am being new I don’t even know who Nancy/Michael are. You give yourself too much power.  It’s not earned or deserved.  

            1. Ok Sharon, you posted in the middle of the night, but signed up yesterday morning.  I’ll give you that much.

              However, as much as you dislike Obama/Bennet/Ritter, you don’t seem to know (or care) much about Romanoff. You can’t even bring yourself to say why you would vote for him?  

              Forgive my skepticism, but I find it hard to believe you would blindly vote for any Democrat.

              Using this forum merely to vent your spleen is a waste of everyone’s time — we see enough of that on the newspaper blogs.

              Bring informed opinions and you will be listened to. If you merely spew vitriol, you will not be treated kindly.

          2. I know two Sharon Hansons.

            Both were big HRC supporters right through the convention.

            Both were puzzled or worse by the Bennet appointment, somehow thinking it was AR’s or JF’s “turn”.

            There are no “turns” in politics.  

            Shocking, I know. But get over it.  Caucus and support AR all you want. Or MB. Or Cleve Tidwell. Or John Flerlage.  Or or or

            But in the end, be careful what you wish for.  I’m not sure AR wins a general if he has to do what I think he has to do to get the nomination.  (I’ll post the math as I see it elsewhere)

            1. PUMA’s and Mike Miles hold outs. The haters. The 200 people who go on about “the people” and, surprisingly enough, think that only they are uniquely chosen to speak in that voice.  

              1. Here’s a fine example of it!  The fact that the PUMA’s and Mike Miles hold outs are probably on the side of AR does not mean that they are his base of support!  Just like angry racist white men aren’t the base of the republican…. Ok bad example…   Point being AR is extremely well liked by the most active of the Democratic party, and this is in fact a race for the nomination of the Democratic party!  

                I would like to know what Bennet’s base is in the Democratic party seeing as no one knew he was a Democrat till he got appointed to the seat!  So far I count Ritter (not the best endorsement at the time), O’Brien (who?), Beucher (bringing home all 3 Grand Junction Democrats), and Obama (not a CO Democrat the last time I checked)… So Bennet has a base of 4, all elected officials who don’t exactly bring a whole lot of activist support with them!

                Oh and as a side note I caucused for Obama, so I’m no PUMA by any means, and I was too young to vote for Mike Miles and don’t think he was a good candidate anyway!  

                  1. It’s pointless.

                    Clearly Bennet has never run for office before. Just as clearly, AR has.

                    Likewise, MB hasn’t been Mr Colorado D insider for many years.  AR has.

                    So what?

                    Vote for me- I had the biggest party base!

                    I’m not the greatest judge of messaging, but this doesn’t work for me. And if AR runs with it- or allows his base to do so on his behalf, it will hurt more than help.

            2. Sharon Hanson is a radio name I used in college over 20 years ago in New England. It has been my name on the internet for about two years now but I mostly used it to post about medical issues. I was a supporter of John Edwards at first and later Obama. I thought HRC was too far to the right for my taste but perhaps I made a mistake in choosing Obama.  

              I work for one of the fortune 50 companies so I have to be discrete about my politics. I still have a family to support and with the Supreme Court about to give corporations the unlimited ability to spend on politics and to go after anybody that disagrees with them I’m a little concerned if you get my drift.  

              My belief is we have to force these politicians to represent us not special interests and that means bumping incumbents who are bought and paid for by special interests.

                1. But in the end should the Supreme Court give them that right it will be one more step in the wrong direction for America.

                  I’m hoping we march quickly to our bottom so that we can get serious about turning our country around. And that won’t happen until the majority of Americans wake up and smell the coffee. I’m going to check out Colbert Nation. He’s funny as hell but at the same time dead serious.  

            1. When someone brand new, with an elaborate story as to why they use a real-sounding name to post anonymously, who can’t spell Bennet’s name, doesn’t have a clue about Romanoff (or Bennet, for that matter — “knows little about economics”, really? — that’s actually why he voted against the cram down — IIRC, it was bad economics), and claims they will vote Democratic (presumably Romanoff) despite apparently having nothing in common with any of the current or potential Democratic officeholders, you have to understand my skepticism.

              The first post was full of rancid hyperbole reminiscent of Michael Dorsett MD (the MD, he finally admitted was just a repeat of his pseudonym’s initials, not a medical degree).

              Portions of the second post are valid opinions which I understand, but don’t necessarily agree with.  

              Funny too, that s/he thinks I was pushing Bennet.  I actually tried to be as fair as possible, although now I’ve outed myself as a Romanoff supporter.

              1.  

                At least I have a degree in Bus Admin but it is you that fails to realize that by not restoring the middleclass our country has no chance in hell of recovering from this depression.  It’s true I am in the minority in my profession (I work with mostly Republicans and I’m a salt water economist as I went to school in New England) but unlike you I understand economics intimately as it is a large part of my profession.

                Sorry about spelling Bennet’s name wrong that is my bad but why all the hatred towards someone who doesn’t like Bennet and supports AR? It’s uncalled for IMO.  

                1. … with a BBA in International Business with a minor in Economics, as long time posters are probably tired of hearing by now.  My issue with the cram-down provision are mainly technical — it was riddled with gotchas and was written a bit too broadly, seemingly ripe for abuse.  Here’s a decent (but certainly not damning) overview, with the first commentary being quite telling.  

                  I certainly support a strong middle class.  Check out my post last week

                  As for the hate — not from me, I don’t think (annoyance, actually — see my post above).  But reread your first post and tell us that was sweetness and light (“resent” in the first sentence).  Human nature is to respond in kind, you know, especially when it reeks of either intentional or unintentional misinformation.

                  Still waiting you hear how you think Romanoff’s past or future voting record is going to meet your expectations.

                  If you follow along on this blog for any significant amount of time, you’ll gain an invaluable education in politics and amazingly insightful (and fact-based) observations about what is going on in Colorado.

                  Welcome aboard.

                  2. much like you will listen to me and that is it now shut up and do what I say.

                    The way I took it you thought someone died and left you in charge.  Until Colorado Pols bans me it’s not your business what I say or what I learn from this site but to imply I even need an education is condescending and pompous.  

                    As for learning about Colorado politics or politics in general you don’t even know how vetted in the process I am. But once again I digress and like I said I believe Bennet is beholden to special interests and readily bends to their agenda whereas I believe Romanoff does compromise but only because he has to. I believe he has the best interests of the citizens of Colorado at heart.  I don’t feel that kind of love from Bennet.  

                    1. … yes, please forgive my sense of ownership.  We do tend to counsel newbies who post flames on their very first day.  My advice to listen and learn, and bring your informed opinions is based on the benefit I’ve gotten in doing the same for the last couple of years here.

                      As for the rest, you won’t get banned from this site except for the most egregious behavior (mostly to do with trying to out someone).

                      It’s up to you to demonstrate how vetted you are in Colorado Politics. This site has deep, deep connections, so it is surprising that you are just discovering it now.

                      So far, I don’t see much affirmation for your views about Bennet in particular, from some of the most politically involved/connected posters in this state.  And I’m the first to admit, relatively speaking, I’m a political lightweight.

                      But come on, “Romanoff compromises only because he has to”?  With political insights like that, why aren’t you running for office?

                    3. Some of the regulars here are pretty rough on new posters (I’m not because I’m perfect). You pretty clearly are a thoughtful person posting your opinion and not a sock-puppet based on your above posts.

                      So welcome aboard. And in 6 months when you think a new poster is a sock-puppet, remember your welcome to the site and go easy on them.

                    5. David is one of the more prolific contributors here, with regular interviews  of the state’s top politicians.  You could do worse than simply following his highly informed and often funny posts.

                      He’s also solidly in the Bennet camp.

                      But I agree, after a rocky start, your posts did change in both tenor and content, so I look forward to your future contributions.

                      But we will also continue to disagree on the matter of how much ideological daylight there is between Bennet and Romanoff.  

                      How each would approach negotiations, the types of alliances they form, staff they attract, and their process for initiating or shaping a piece of legislation based on their personal styles — now that’s where they could have substantial differences.  

                      And that’s where I take the side of Romanoff and his 8 years of legislative experience.

                      But on any given bill presented to them, their votes would be almost indistinguishable, and certainly far closer to the middle than I read your position to be.

                    6. while the Bennet vs. Romanoff crowd debates

                      “what’s the policy differences?”

                      there is the other reality

                      from Cindy Lowery, the Denver Dems county chair:


                      For the first time since I was elected Chair, our office is receiving calls from people excited about the U.S. Senate race.

                    7. You can paste that quote and bold it up 20 times (and you probably will), but it just reflects your naivte.

                      There wasn’t a primary before. There is now. Of course people are getting wound up. Just like Republican activists are getting wound up about their primary.

                      That’s just a statement of the obvious. It is not proof of anything, but who knows what it is you think you are proving.  

                    9. But Cindy Lowery endorsed Romanoff during the appointment process, and though she is prohibited from officially endorsing either candidate in the primary, you don’t have to be a genius to know where she stands in thsi race.

        2. who is getting tired of idiots giving the world lectures about who is smarter than whom? It’s just fill-in-the-blank buzzwords to trash other people in order to posture as “for the people.” No facts. Just spite.

          Pretentious swill is what it is.  

          1. If so what facts are you looking for? It is the fact that Michael Bennett voted no on the cram-down legislation? Or is it that Bennett refuses to take a stand on the EFCA? Or is it that he didn’t come out for the Public Option until after Andrew Romanoff jumped into the race.  

            In addition I’m tired of Obama catering to the right after progressives got him elected.  And if the Public Option does not make it into the final legislation I’m am going to be very disappointed. Is that allowed or am I to keep quiet and accept the fact that we are not going to get the change we voted for.

             

            1. Bennet has been publicly pushing a public option since early summer. That lie has been rolled out and dispensed with on this blog dozens of times already.

              It’s been public support that has been discussed widely enough that anyone still rolling out this mistruth can no longer plead ignorance. They are liars, and that is how they will be treated.  

              1. Rumors that incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet may face a primary challenge from former Speaker of the Colorado House Andrew Romanoff are now arousing commentary on a national level. Referencing yesterday’s David Sirota blog on the Huffington Post, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow framed the potential primary as part of a larger trend in which the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is no longer being “used as a doormat.” Echoing Sirota’s argument, Maddow claimed that Romanoff’s threats to primary Bennet have forced Bennet to come out in stronger support of the Public Option

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

                I had nothing against Bennett until all of these things took place. I think he is in the pockets of special interests and he will have to work harder to earn my trust and that of many other progressives.

                  1. You are good at attacking a newcomer and thank you for confirming my conviction about Bennett.  If you had something good to say about him you wouldn’t need to attack me.  

                    By the way I’m in agreement with much of David Siroto’s views. He gets it and he doesn’t have to take cheap shots at someone who is voicing their opinions.  But I digress. You’ll have to do better than this to get me to cower to the likes of you.  

                    I support Romanoff because I believe he will better represent the citizens of Colorado while Bennett has already shown us his true colors by his voting record, his inability to take a stand on key issues and his loyalty to special interests.  Besides it sends a strong message to incumbents that they had better tow the line or they will be challenged.  

                    1. but there really is on the record evidence that Bennet supported the public option before Romanoff threatened to announce.  There is also no evidence that Romanoff would offer more vigorous support than the Bennet position.

                      The Bennet position is probably the most common among elected Dems from the president on down at this point: Support public option but no promise to reject out of hand any bill without it. Good luck finding anything more clear or even as clear from Romanoff.

                    2. I’ll even give Bennet credit for that much!  I mean took him long enough, but still doesn’t seem motivated by the primary!  His continuing touting of that fact now is another story and probably at least a little related!

                  1. But this has me seeing red. This is a flat out lie. Malpractice lawsuits do not significantly raise the cost of healthcare in this country.  Administrative costs and denial of claims raise the cost of health insurance. Add profits and that is 46% of healthcare dollars not going to patient care. This is another reason I don’t support Bennett he’s not in reality.  


                    Bennet, D-Colo., also wants to look at limiting malpractice lawsuits, he told a group of doctors and nurses at St. Joseph Hospital in Denver.

                    And by the way I don’t support him because of how he voted on the cram-down and his weak support for the public option as well as not committing to supporting at least some form of the EFCA. To me his vote on the cram-down demonstrated inexperience in dealing with the worst crisis since the Great Depression and a propensity to act based on past political beliefs that are no longer relevant. I think Romanoff gets it and Bennett doesn’t.  

                    1. Bring up the “About Andrew” page.

                      Look under “Controlling Cost of Health Care.”

                      Tell me where Andrew says beans about a public option, one way or another.

                      In fact, tell me where Andrew says anything about the future or his views on national issues.  See, there is no issues page.

                      I’m sure he’ll get around to it eventually, but right now Andrew has given us no way to compare the two candidates on the issues.  That’s why many of us think there isn’t a scintilla of difference between them.

                    2. Your goal posts are arbitrary, and will move up and down the field in whatever manner is most convenient to your purposes.  

                    3. … with his middle of the road voting record, will you continue ranting and thrashing over the same tired talking points?  

                      Try scrolling through this blog’s archives for the last month or so, and you’ll see why we’re pretty bored with your indignant posts under an assumed identity (the mark of trolls around here — if you need anonymity, choose a snarky handle — don’t pretend to be someone your not).

                      Notice below, that I actually do plan to vote for Romanoff.  I still have my doubts about you.

                    4. but mild support, such as Obama has indicated for looking into this issue, takes some of the wind out of GOP sails on the subject.  No harm and nothing to see red about.  

                      If you just like Romanoff better, Sharon, fine.  But you seem to be grasping at straws here for drumming up entirely uncalled for issues based passion on the subject.  Not particularly rational as there is hardly any significant issue disparity to point to.

                      There is nothing inherently wrong with gut based preference.  We have to rely on something when two candidates present little other basis for preference, after all. But don’t try to turn Romanoff into a champion for progressives. It won’t work because it is so easily demonstrated to be inaccurate by his record.  

    2. And this is exactly why I do not support Bennet.  I want competent and effective legislators to represent me.  Having a career dedicated to public service is not a bad thing and this blackening the names of those who work hard in the legislative process as ‘career politicians’ is a blight upon our nation and our state in particular.

      Now Bennet is not a bad guy, but I do not see in him the potential to be a great politician.  He does not appear to have the staying power to outlast his opponents, he’ll probably return to the private sector in a few years, or the legislative chops to outmaneuver them.  Romanoff is likely to have the first and does have the second.

      I’m going with competence and experience.

    1. 1 or 2 freshman senators in 2010, and now a 3rd challenger in the Dem primary?

      It took balls for Romanoff to enter.  No other Democrat has a remote chance at the nomination.  The most likely scenario beyond Bennet and Romanoff would be Bill Ritter resigning to run for the seat himself, which ain’t gonna happen.

        1. I was making a point that the next most likely candidate to join the field was Bill Ritter, even though he’s very,  very,  very unlikely to do that.  To unseat an incumbent and beat one of the best known, well-liked, and well-connected Democrats at the state level you need significant cash and name ID of your own.  Ritter is the only one who has that.

          The field will not spread.  Democrats have their two options.  That’s it.

    1. very much. But, I did want AR to be appointed. I have spoken with both of them several times. It is a fact that a week after he took office MB was not in favor of a public option. Not opposed, just not in favor. I have spoken to him several times about it as his position was changing and I am gratified to know that many others were as well.

      I want a progressive Dem to hold that seat. That means that since MB has never faced election a primary is the only way in our electoral system to find out who is the strongest progressive Dem.

      But, I do think MB will win the primary and I don’t think he will be significantly harmed during the primary.

      Although I was a supporter of Mike Miles I also hope AR doesn’t go the Miles route and I don’t think he will. Whichever of these Dems wins 50.5 to 49.5 will be who I will vote for in the general. Right now each of them has a shot at my vote and my support.

    2. and both are pretty much equal on the moderate to progressive scale. I wanted Romanoff to get it but I will now support Bennet.  

      The fact that Romanoff didn’t get the appointment is water under the bridge. I don’t see what we get with Romanoff at this point that makes turning out an incumbent with the same positions, tons of money and support from the President and DNC worthwhile.  

      Romanoff’s main reason for running seems to be that he wasn’t the appointed one, so the whole choice of the people argument doesn’t move me. He would have been quite satisfied had he been the one who was not the choice of the people. This seems more about Romanoff not being able to let go than anything else and that just doesn’t cut it for me. I still wish Romanoff all the best personally.

  7. University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small

    This race strikes me as the same thing – it’s not over what the person in this Senate seat will do, just over who will do it. And lots of people who’s feelings were hurt when Ritter did not do as they wanted.

    1. I think Meiner49er above nailed it pretty well.  Neither deserve the seat until they prove they can earn it.

      I’ve lived in HD6 (Romanoff’s district) for 15 years, so I’ve gotten to observe/interact with Romanoff and his staff several times, especially in the last election cycle.  As much as I respect Bennet, and don’t want to endanger this seat, Romanoff has more than earned my vote.

      But it also is a preference for personal styles — which one will be more effective in the Senate?  That’s the decision that will tip many a vote.

      I know you and I agree that the primary should make our respective candidates stronger for the general election.  Just hope the crazy is kept to a minimum on both sides.

  8. When Speaker Romanoff realizes that he is in over his head and on his way to a landslide loss he will lose his cool.  Andrew has lived a favored life. Bennet has too but serving as Chief of Staff and Superintendent taught him how to take a punch.  

    1. to prance around in fields of lilies?  Sorry, that doesn’t hold much water.  While I’m sure Bennett has had to deal with tough situations and his work with the school district was probably not exactly a cake walk, I don’t think that somehow uniquely qualifies someone as being able to take a punch.  I mean the C&D fight was a big ugly fight too.  Quite a few punches were thrown there too.  A bad argument given your conditions.

    1. … the candidates (and their supporters) will show us a thing or two about how to shred each other over phoney/unproductive agendas.

      Our differences are miniscule in comparison.  And regardless of who wins the respective primaries, our candidate (and likely Senator) will be head and shoulders above theirs.

      1. Has anyone actually seen Norton in public doing anything? I haven’t heard a peep from her. I think don’t think she’s up for what a contested primary requires and will either just go through the motions or drop out.

        Same on the Gov side – McInnis seems to have gone into the witness protection program. Or maybe he’s opening a real estate business with his “campaign manager.”

        I was looking forward to the GOP have 2 strong primaries where they fought out moderate vs wing-nut. The GOP needs to do this to recover. But we may have to wait till ’14 to get this.

  10. I disagree- these two are very very different in backgrounds, records (resumes), life views, concern for society and the common good, andmuch more. They’re not 2 peas in a pod!  For example:

    After his undergrad degree, Romanoff chose to work for a time with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Does Bennet have a similar experience in his record?

    In my mind, you start with a false premise (they are alike in views on government’s role in society  Nd how they would view the Senate job we will give tp the primary winner), ans the discussion follows from that false premise. Would anyone do us all the courtesy of posting each one’s brief resume since law school, so the discussion is based on fact?!?

    Thank you very much.

          1. I know, hard to believe, right?!

            and, yes, according to his website, AR graduated last year from DuhLaw, er DU Law (I joke, people!).  I don’t believe he’s attemted to pass the bar exam, though.

      1. Thanks Madco- that should help the discussion be a little more informed! i think this process of educating Democrats (including me) for a clearly heated up primary will be exhausting but rewarding.

    3. relentlessly waving the guy’s resume around. They waved the shit out of that resume. But being able to tell 10 people about it at some liberal coffee shop versus telling millions of people about it on TV is the real difference between the big boys and the wannabes.  

  11. I have not met Bennet. I have read in Den Post that he is from the N E,  has ties to President Obama, that Bennet came here to work for Phil Anschutz, and he left that job to be DPS super.

    Is that appointed also? Then in January Gov Ritter appointed him to Salazar’s Senate seat. If there’s more , I’d like to hear it. His only Senate vote I know of is (a friend here) said he voted no on the bill to allow a judge to give a homebuyer facing foreclosure some leeway to try to keep the house. If these are not facts please correct me on it.

    I am a Dem pct chair in western E P County, and first met Romanoff in 2004. He came down here to help canvass the westside of C S for our (Dem) State House Representative in HD 18. He was your (HD6 is it?)Rep I think at the time but not yet Speaker. He came to C S two or three times more that I know of- that’s not inclusive since I aint privy to all- it’s true- to speak to Dems here with our elected Dems (3 now!) at the end of the legislative session, about the work they did that year.

    Most recently in Spring of 08. I am a single payer advocate and asked at that meet what happened to that proposal in the House that year. Our Reps didn’t wanta touch it, but Andrew stepped up to say it go tabled! And his view was that that change would come from Washington, since some Fed law made it difficult to do at a state level. (18 mos later thre’ll be some sort of health care change from D C , and Kucinich has introduced an amendment to HR 3200, which will allow states to set up a single payer program.  I hope we ge Kucinich’s amendment into law. So it seems to me that

    Andrew  Romanoff was right on and just about

    predicted where we are now on h c reform 18 mos ago.

    Again if you google votesmart.org, and search

    “Romanoff vote record” you get a picture of

    then legislative work he did in 8 years in our State House.

    BTW 2 of our 3  Democratic State Reps and Senator here endorsed Romanoff according to the Gazette last Thur.

    My point in this is there is at least a eight year record of Romanoff serving in elected office. He is good at doing that, and by all accounts is good at bringing together diverse people. I believe he would be our best choice to run for US Senate next year.

    So if we stay constructive here, I think we will have a really worthwhile exercise in the First Amendment to

    The U S Constitution. Also I think Romanoff got his law

    degree fromm D U law school.

    Someone now educate me about Bennet, since all I do know is from news sources.

    Thanks for the dialogue  – with luck the candidate’s will

    learn about it and maybe take away a point or two!!

       

    1. He has a perfectly good website. Between that, google, and genuine interest, you don’t need other people to do the heavy lifting for you. There are nine months of votes you can work through, lots of youtube videos that can give you a sense of the guy, and an accessible staff that can help out too.

      Good luck.  

  12. gpr3 is merely suggesting we inject some facts into all the name-calling and browbeating.  You have been against a primary because you think it will cause all kinds of negativity.  Nobody has sown more negativity than you in your many posts!  It doesn’t help ColoPols and it doesn’t help your candidate.  

    And before I get lectured myself, let me say that I’ve read ColoPols for years and have sporadically commented under a different name.  (But since I forgot both my pw and id I made up a new one.)  I’ve also lived in Colorado and been around politics my whole life.  So let’s be less concerned about how long somebody has been posting and more concerned about what they have to say.  

    Seems to me it’d be a great idea for progressives to take a closer look at those Bennet and Romanoff resumes.  They are both smart guys but they have taken different paths.  

    Btw, the idea that Romanoff is running because he is bitter about not being appointed is ridiculous.  He is running because he wants to be a U.S. Senator!  And people are supporting him because they think he would be a good one.  It’s not some complicated revenge scheme.

    1. Actually, I don’t think that Twas is being negative at all. He has a style, and it fits with this blog. He’s not going out of his way to write flowery compliments to people, but that doesn’t mean he’s “sewing negativity”.

      On the contrary, I think that the people who have been sewing the most negativity are those who have used every attack imaginable on Bennet, and when people disagree, they go on rants about how those who disagree with them hate democracy and other such nonsense.

      But I appreciate that you want to have a civil discussion. I just hope you’ll call out your fellow Romanoff supporters when they are acting less than civil.

    2. That was negative? I thought I was being gentle.

      I invite you to go through my comments and show where my “negativity” on this primary wasn’t in response to some really ridiculous stuff from Romanoff partisans–including fabrication, spiteful tripe, dishonesty, purity trolling, thread hijacking, blowhardism, and various other forms of douchebaggery.

      I think the fact that I took the time to read and try and make sense of gpr3’s appallingly constructed comment is to my credit. I also believe that if she was genuinely interested in Bennet’s work as senator, she wouldn’t be asking other people to do her googling for her.  

  13. I like, and am supporting, Sen. Bennet.  He has proven himself in both the public and private sectors, is thoughtful, engaging, caring, and open to constructive dialogue and suggestions.  I also trust him more than AR, since Sen. Bennet has not tried to do an end run around the clear will of the voters–vide, the attempts to gut TABOR.  

    I oppose AR’s primary run, as it appears to me to be simply the equivalent of a political temper tantrum that he was not selected for the seat in the first place.  AR’s run also displays a complete lack of loyalty to the the party he claims to hold so dear–a primary fight, regardless of the victor, can only damage the winning candidate’s chances in the general election.  And I simply don’t think he has the depth and breadth of life experience to function as well as Sen. Bennet in the Senate.

    I’m sorry AR miscalculated his career, but that is not sufficient reason, in my view, to challenge an eminently qualified and popular incumbent Senator.  

      1. An argument could be made by people smarter and more patient than I, that a primary on a national stage may help or hurt the eventual nominee.

        On a state level- especially a small state (which we are by almost any useful measure) I think it’s a tougher argument to make that it helps.  It could- but it’s far more likely to hurt.

        Disaffected, disgruntled and otherwise dis-something D’s and U’s are more likely to not vote for a wounded nominee.  This hurts a Senate candidate way more in Colorado than it a Presidential candidate in the 08 cycle.

        Besides, Obama 07/08 and Romaonoff 09/10 is not the exactly a logical comparison.  

      2. Hillary’s having been elected?  My problem with Romanoff is his challenge of an incumbent Senator of the same party.  In my view, he should be helping organize Sen. Bennet’s re-election, not spitefully running in a primary the Democratic Party, which he claims to hold so dear, does not need.  

        Romanoff would be screaming bloody murder if the roles were reversed–I think it’s notable that Sen. Bennet has not done that.  

      2. while listening carefully to the debate (not just on this site, but here in Mesa County, as well) but I now feel compelled to weigh in and agree with David, except for his preference. Today, I am supporting Andrew Romanoff; not because I have an axe to grind with Bennet, whom I think would make a capable senator, but because I think AR would be a better senator.

        That said, I think this primary is a good thing for both candidates and good for the Colorado Democratic party. I have known Andrew Romanoff for years, professionally, not personally, and I have enormous respect for his abilities. Having met Senator Bennet a couple of times, I was impressed by him as well.

        He (Bennet) has between now and the primary to convince me he will be a better legislator than Andrew Romanoff, and if he does, I might change my mind. He has his work cut out for him on that score.

        I feel confident that this will be one of the cleanest, most respectful campaigns we have seen in a long time. Both men are gentlemen and I think both have a considerable respect for each other.

        I will finish with a question. Since this may boil down to little more than a popularity contest, is there a more popular Democrat in Colorado than Andrew Romanoff?

  14. When Richardson was running for the Senate in Massachusetts, he waved his resume of appointed offices until the cows came home.  Some pundit deflated it with the slogan: “Vote for Elliott Richardson.  He’s better than you are!”

      I know both men well and Bennet’s sense of Yuppie entitlement is staggering.  Whether his supporters like it or not, the fact that he got appointed to a job with no prior experience in elective office doesn’t mean other citizens lose their right to run for that office.  

    1. I’ve always struggled with the people who claim ownership of the process, by claiming that “dues” need to be paid, and that sort of thing. For all the caterwauling about “democracy” behind Andrew’s campaign, the core of it is the frustrated entitlement that came with feeling the governor didn’t respect the sense of ownership some Democrats felt over the seat. And he didn’t.

      But look at the flip side of your spiteful little comment here. Bennet’s actually in the senate, making the votes. He doesn’t need to wave anything in the air.

      Andrew’s campaign, meanwhile, seems to be built on the concept of, “Vote for Andrew, he’s more of politician!”

      I don’t think that’s a winner in 2010.  

      1. Had no problem with being part of the system then, when they thought Romanoff or some other established politician was a shoo-in. Romanoff certainly didn’t–SoS too for that matter.

        Fast forward 10 months and you’d think someone put liquid populism in the water.

    2. Police–

      Surely you jest?  

      Romanoff has the biggest sense of entitlement I’ve ever seen–staggering, and far in excess of Sen. Bennet–who, incidentally, lacks that “Yuppie entitlement” sense you mention.  

      It still looks to me as if Romanoff is running out of spite and the lack of anything else to do.  Why doesn’t he go get some real experience in the private sector?  

      1. Or in another elected office?

        I’d work for him if he moved to CD6 and challenged Coffman.  I’d even help move a piano or sofa bed, which I never offer.

        Hell- I might even help him take on DeGette.  Pfffft, like that could ever happen.

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

97 readers online now

Newsletter

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