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 25, 2009 10:37 PM UTC
68 Comments
really think things look that dicey for Ritter?
I do… Ritter is in BIG trouble. Hell even people in Maine are worried about him.
I was in DC last week and everyone asked me who would run as the dem next term when he lost.
I can totally see Ritter losing, but I have a hard time seeing Penry winning. He is not a bad campaigner but, he has no positions acceptable to the middle.
McInnis might do better, if he could campaign.
If there’s a parade, there’s going to be horses, and if there’s horses, that means CLEVE TIDWELL is there and ready to ROCK!
That’s the best laugh I’ve had in awhile.
if he hadn’t burned his allies. The budget isn’t the only thing that has hurt Ritter. He screwed the pooch with some of his decisions and those decisions are largely the reason for his dismal standing with voters.
Ritter=unpopular with base
Bennet= associated with Ritter
(like his ‘support’ email)
As I was discussing this with some political organizers – the consensus was that Bennet should have defined himself with some strong statements early – very early, and should have been speaking out against being labeled a ‘conservadem’ instead of letting that ride.
(perhaps a mass email “why I am NOT a conservadem”)
(if there is such an email – mea culpa)
and to differentiate himself from the Governor in some way – how I don’t know.
As for Obama’s support – I think it was a pretty big blunder to call in that favor so soon after Romanoff’s announcement.
People I have talked to look at that as a sign of real fear in camp Bennet.
There are a lot of people questioning why Obama is injecting himself in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York politics – especially in primaries, when he is the perfect example of a candidate that benefited from a primary.
And, even if it is smart politics – why would you publicly ask Patterson not to run?
why not back door it somehow so you won’t have Patterson’s wife going out on the stump questioning the President’s motives?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l…
in Bennet’s camp. In fact, I saw a lot of “Oh my God, we can’t get discouraged” diaries coming from the Romanoff camp and from his supporters. Seemed it was a big blow to their campaign just as it was picking up steam and it really felt like his campaign sort of deflated at the news.
In my opinion, that was perfect timing–straight out of the gate, an endorsement from the President of the United States. I don’t think I’m second guessing Romanoff’s camp when I suggest they would have loved that endorsement and barring an endorsement, would have preferred Obama to stay quiet. That was an endorsement heard ’round the world, so to speak. 🙂
As to Patterson, why not go public about it since behind the scenes measures have fallen on deaf ears? If public humiliation is the only way to get that fool out of office, so be it.
what do you make of that?
fyi,
i just heard about another Romanoff endorsement by a popular local elected official.
will give the link once its up.
On every occasion possible you’ve tried to inject PA and NY into this to delegitimize the president’s support of Sen. Bennet. This being Colorado, it doesn’t seem like anyone has really taken the bait. So my question is, who cares?
I think that one is obvious–Specter got promised full support if he switched parties. Obama needed that 60 votes and he knew it and at the time, Franken still was not confirmed. Pure political machinations…which make perfect sense to me.
That said, since Sestak is significantly left of Specter, I’d like to see him take out Specter in the primary.
And to piggy back on that, this is why I constantly take exception with that race being brought up in comparison to Bennet/Romanoff–because there isn’t much daylight between them on issues and the two situations are as about as different as two races can possibly get. If you are having a conversation about Obama and what his motivations are politically, then both races are relevant. But since your diaries are focused on Colorado’s Senate race, I fail to see the relevancy and often wonder why you continue to inject Pennsylvania’s race into our discussion about the one here in Colorado.
I understand if you have a beef with Obama for backing Specter but it is a totally different subject and in need of a separate discussion.
wasn’t it? Kinda nice. 🙂
but with only 15% of the truth the unaffiliated voters have just enough info to justify their decision for more change.
At least not since Specter’s switch. In fact, I’d argue there’s not much ideological difference between the two at all. And besides being quite conservative, Sestak is one of the world’s real first class a#$-holes. Goes through staff like Liz Taylor with husbands, and is not a particularly good retail politician.
My prediction, having some experience with PA politics, is this race fades away into “oh yeah, whatever happened to that Sestak guy”-land by Spring.
Wade, I’m sure this has been broken to you a million times, but your anecdotal interactions with “people” and “organizers” that you coincidentally happen to agree with don’t really mean much. I can (and do) say that the party activists I’ve talked to almost all think a primary is a stupid idea; one well known Northern Colorado Democrat calling the president’s endorsement the “nail in the coffin.” But I hardly think it is appropriate to generalize that to a large population of folks. (In fact, I think primary-voting Democrats in general probably have no idea there even is a primary at this point.)
To give you a couple of examples of why you should reconsider finding your personal assumptions so compelling and persuasive, not too long ago you were insisting that Romanoff would have name rec “ten fold” greater than Bennet’s, that in a primary head to head Romanoff would be running way ahead, and that there is a vast well of support for a Romanoff candidacy out there in yonder Colorado.
None of this has proven to be true. Rasmussen showed that Bennet has significantly better name rec than Romanoff. The Tarrance Group poll showed Bennet leading Romanoff by 14 points. The assumption that Andrew would automatically be the stronger campaigner has been tempered by misfiring on EFCA, banality on health care (the great issue of the day), a painful message meltdown from his most important Latina supporter, announcing two weeks before the end of a fincial reporting period, and a confused and amateurish online roll-out that included multiple FEC violations. Reality bites.
I think Andrew’s in it for the long haul, and will one day find a message as well as his stride, but I’m going to trust the president’s political skills far more than, say, yours, when it comes to the impact of a presidential endorsement.
do you support Arlen Specter over Joe Sestak?
I don’t really give a shit. Hint: neither does anyone else.
if Specter beats Sestak because of the Prez’s support, then loses the general to nutcase Pat Toomey, then there is one less democrat in the Senate.
And that affects all of us no matter what state we live in.
(unfortunately)
I can play too: If Sestak/Specter loses to Specter/Sestak after a shit ton of money is raised and spent, and then the seat is lost to nutjobber Pat Toomey, that is one less Democrat in the Senate. But since you believe that ALL PRIMARIES ARE SUPER GREAT, what do you care?
I’m no fan of Specter, but I think your persistent use of PA is a red herring.
I think the scenario of Sestak winning and then losing to Toomey is much more likely. Specter has, you know, won that seat a few times.
But like Twas said, it doesn’t really have anything to do with this race other than the fact that they’re both high profile US Senate races, and Obama endorsed the incumbent in both.
I think you keep thinking this has to do with ideology, but it really has more to do with trying to keep those seats. You think that if PA Dems pick the more ideologically “pure” candidate, then they have a better chance of winning. Since Romanoff wouldn’t be considered a “real” Democrat by many i9n the national liberal blogosphere, I don’t see how the same thing can be applied to him in the Colorado race.
You’re correct that it affects us all, but I don’t see how comparing the races helps anyone–but it especially doesn’t help Romanoff.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
Nate Silver rocks.
That’s all well and good. I’m glad that Sestak’s presence has pushed Specter to the center.
However, this is yet another reason why comparing the PA race and the CO race isn’t helpful. Romanoff hasn’t pushed Bennet to the left because there aren’t any big policy difference between them. If anything, Romanoff has allowed Bennet to remain in the center.
It remains true that the sole rationale for this primary is…the primary. That’s all zippedy dooh dah for a lot of Democrats, but I suspect the process junkies and the “pay the dues” gatekeeper types are a minority. I don’t think those viewpoints are “bad” or are inherently wrong, I just think they are not the formula that will get Andrew the votes he needs. Simply put, the mathematics aren’t there to win an election.
Because for a challenge of an incumbent to be successful, a lot people think there needs to be more meat on the bones, have looked for it, and haven’t found it–because it’s not there. And I just don’t think a majority of primary-voting Democrats are going to be moved by the circular thinking involved here. It’s a very pretty carousel for a lot Democrats, but the process junkies are not a dominant enough force. Most people like to think they are getting somewhere, because going round and round feels foolish after a little while. Looking at Andrew Romanoff’s campaign, what does it offer? Where is it leading? Because a big, glorified process argument is not going to get the job done.
A state that has returned Specter time and time again isn’t a state where a more ideologically pure liberal seems called for. And what does a Specter/Sestak match up have to do with a Bennet/Romanoff match up? There is virtually no ideological difference in the latter case, no ideologically purer liberal, which is just as well considering that this is Colorado.
but more importantly they want to send him to DC
But I’ll answer anyway.
I like Sestak. But there was a deal made for Specter to switch parties. Obama’s help raising funds was part of it.
That doesn’t mean that I like Specter or trust him as far as I can throw him. But a deal is a deal.
He could have, for instance, said to Specter, if you don’t play ball when push comes to shove, I won’t endorse or support you. Specter had leverage as a stepping stone to 60. If Specter joins Rs in preventing cloture, what good is he?
That supporting Andrew = supporting Sestak? A highly dubious comparison indeed. I for one am an enthusiastic (financially and non) supporter of Romanoff and Specter.
Twas — you attack Wade for statements without facts and then make a few yourself:
1) who is that “well known northern colorado democrat?” who you quote?
2) What FEC violations did Andrew have?
I think if everyone can put up some facts for statements like these it may help you sound less like a hatchetman and more like someone whose opinion is valid
Trust me, I’ve attacked Wade before. This isn’t an attack.
1) Re-read my comment, the whole point of my anecdote is to illustrate that the personal anecdotes that Wade habitually rolls out are useless as data points.
2) We’ve been over the FEC issue in a previous thread, in which I said I am not interested in doing someone else’s research. Knock yourself out: http://www.fec.gov/info/public…
Regarding your last point, we are two people with ridiculous pseudonyms wasting our Friday afternoons on a blog. Let’s keep things in perspective.
get a brewsky with me.
how about this?
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
I hope you are getting well paid.
A few observations on the primary to date.
Timing of the Obama endorsement could have been better. Could have been a knock out blow in March but issued so early in the game may be old news by spring.
Romanoff continues to role up endorsements post Obama.
Bennet seems to be embracing the primary challenge as way prove himself in electoral setting as compared to the board room jockey he has been all his career.
Bennet miscue on the Aurora terrorism investigation not going away as charges against Najibullah Zazi lead to trial that will captivate nation. (The ad almost writes itself)
Romanoff campaign still sounds like it is a guest at a tea social not fighting for survival in a barroom brawl.
Not clear if the stink of the Anschutz years will stick to Bennet.
By the way, who is running Romanoff’s campaign?
If you are going to use an insult, it would help if you first knew what it meant. That helps you avoid the whole “looking like a blithering idiot” thing.
Twas wins the guilt by reply award and a bag of tub socks.
I like them both.
But I will vociferously defend Twas Brillig. He is no sock puppet.
TB has posted here on many topics for many years.
We’ll all just have to really behind Bennet’s opposition. It’s the only logical conclusion.
And that’s BAD?
It’s only bad if you’re a shill for a candidate who is tilting at windmills (and didn’t get the President’s endorsement).
By the way, Patterson isn’t running for office in Colorado. If he was, he would STILL be up shit’s creek without a paddle, as he is in New York. You need to reach harder for relevant analogies. That one doesn’t pass the snicker test.
://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-house-line-5.html#more
Candidates raising money with both hands will issue press releases on Thursday trumpeting their fundraising prowess. Those who have not done as well will quietly file two weeks later and hope no one notices. Here are my guesses as to who will and will not be bragging on October 1.
BRAGGERS
Betsey Markey. Likes being in Congress and wants to stay. One of the best if not the best Freshman fundraiser.
Cory Gardner. Cory has exceeded the expectations of even his most fervent supporters. Cory has clearly reserved a spot on the list of seats to be targeted by the GOP. This will be an incredibly expensive race.
Michael Bennet. Bennet will likely have out raised Romanoff from September 16 the date Romanoff announced through October 1. Bennet is a fundraising machine.
John Salazar. Always efficient and will release early numbers to scare off potential challengers.
Cary Kennedy. A well organized fund raising operation for the universally well liked Kennedy.
THOSE WHO WON’T BE BRAGGING
Josh Penry. The base is excited but the checkbooks are still in back pockets.
Andrew Romanoff. Just not getting it done.
Two polls showing rumors of a deep, statewide fan base were wishful thinking. Two weeks to raise serious money versus 9 months of Bennet having his act together. That’s not a happy place to be right out of the gate, but everyone should still settle in for a long distance slog for both guys.
…Jane Norton, saying she’s less likely to win the Senate seat than Andrew Romanoff? She was leading BOTH Democrats by 5 or 6 points in the Rasmussen poll no matter how dull you feel she is…
# of Democrat Incumbents Up: 4/6
# of Republican Challengers Down: 8/10
Only Democrats who you thought did bad were Ritter (Umm….duh!) and Jared Polis, who you know has no shot in hell of losing his seat in either a primary or the general election. Only Republicans you thought did well were Jane Norton (probably because she actually announced her candidacy) and Josh Penry, because…well, he’s not McInnis or Ritter, which is a very good thing.
And your disclaimer at the bottom says “It does NOT reflect who we want to see win” but takes into account “insider perspectives” from those in both parties. It claims to be an “accurate…look at the races.”
And yet I can’t help but notice how completely FOS you guys are…
Ryan Frazier beats Bennet in a Rasmussen head-to-head, even though Frazier has only 7% name ID. Voters have no idea what they’re talking about in polls right now, because they don’t know any of the candidates.
We’ve been largely complimentary of Norton on this site, calling her the GOP’s best candidate, etc. But she hasn’t DONE anything yet, and her appeal is all theoretical. Right now, there’s no reason to suggest that Norton, who has been out of politics for awhile now, would be better than either Bennet or Romanoff. Six months from now? Maybe. But not yet.
Counting the number of up or down arrows…what does that have to do with anything? There are 17 Republican candidates and 11 Democrats on the line – there’s inevitably going to be more movement among GOP candidates.
But if it makes you feel better, then yes, it’s all a big conspiracy.
I knew it!
It had to be.
But there’s always a few people who bitch about the odds, or the arrows, or who’s on it and who’s not. There are always a few comments like this in every Big Line thread.
This is one of the more bitter Big Line bitching comments though, so congrats.
Where’s RB’s outrage over the GOP’s “best bet” at taking out a Democrat not even making the line?
Or at least that is the gospel according to Western Colorado’s recent graduate from the Glenn Beck School for Anvils. Why Wagner insists that Tipton take second face plant, I’m sure I don’t know.
(a hint for Rick: Salazar didn’t need Obama the first time)
What say you? An 18-1 line?
n/t
the Big Line used to piss me off too for various reasons. Then I got over it when I realized it didn’t really matter much.
Money can overcome bad poll numbers
Amusing
How so?
Dems are far more comfortable beating each other up…intraparty feuds are so comfortable. It is like coming home after a ride on the wild side, familiar, and safe, your enemies are just like your family..hell they are your family..
I figure it doesn’t really matter but I am with those who think we will see a red tide in 2010…..I say that not because I want it….but because if things don’t change, it will not matter…who the dems put in the general…any general.
This feels like 1988 in the presidential election and 2002 in colorado…feels bad.
The President’s party in the first mid terms always gives up some seats.
It won’t be a tide It ain’t 94.
CD1-7 will not turn over.
The CO House & Senate will not turn over.
I don’t think the Governor’s seat is going to turn.
And the Senate- will, it’s all about the primaries.
As for the rest of the US- the House R’s will gain some seats. but the majority will not change. Likewise the Senate.
The President’s party in the first mid terms always gives up some seats.
Eye on the ball- healthcare, cap & trade, expiration of the Bush tax cuts, getting out of Iraq, and so on. It’s not about a few seats here or there. It’s not about the spin the R will put out.
Unless the president’s party is ginning up a war of convenience and painting the opposition as traitorous cowards. Republicans gained seats in 2002.
fight aphorisms and cliches with actual facts.
It’s just not fair.
…you can avoid loses and pick up 5 House seats for your party if you get caught getting a BJ from an intern and the opposition party makes the campaign all about the BJ.
in his political career that it would be a shock if he was actually favored to win.
Sure he pissed off his base with goofy decisions and stupid appointments but he has managed to hold together the state government and deal with the worst recession in quite a while. When you line up the nutjobs like Penry who vow to make homosexuals and unwed mothers their favorite issues, Ritter wins on pure pragmatism. Also remember that it is conventional wisdom in both state and national politics that the Democratic base isn’t needed to win. As a matter of fact, you can get points with the Glenn Beck crowd by stomping on the fingers of the Democratic base so Ritter should be fine come the General.
it was HIS PICK for the Senate. You don’t actually think Ritter would do something this big by himself would you? If he did he would have choosen DeGetter, Perlmutter or Romanoff…or is he truly that dumb?