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 28, 2009 06:08 PM UTC

Pols Poll: U.S. Senate (Democrats)

  • 85 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

With less than a year until the 2010 primaries, it’s time to start the annual Colorado Pols Polls.

As we’ve done in other election years, we regularly poll our readers on various races to gauge changing perceptions. These obviously aren’t scientific polls, but they do help to show how the perception of various candidates are changing. We’ll conduct these polls each month and then show the results to see how the winds are shifting.

As always, please vote based on what you think will happen, not on who you would vote for or which candidate you support personally. Think of it this way: If you had to bet the deed to your house, who would you pick?

Who Will Be the Democratic Nominee for U.S. Senate?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

85 thoughts on “Pols Poll: U.S. Senate (Democrats)”

      1. If Bennet out-raises Romanoff by as much as insiders think he will, then that first headline might not be too far off. The way that it will be played in the media and the blogs will all depend on how well Romanoff responds.

        1. We know each campaign will say their numbers are “good,” but what will the experts say is “good.” If Romanoff doesn’t have good numbers, they can say they were just getting started. If Bennet doesn’t have good numbers, they can say he already has a ton of money and was busy in Washington.

          1. But the focus isn’t going to be on him, it’s going to be on Romanoff.

            More to your point though, I think part of the reason that they started the official campaign so late in the FEC filing period was because of the exact reason you touched on. If their numbers are too far below Bennet’s, “We’ve only been campaigning for a few weeks” will give them a quarter to get their act together, but it’s a patch job. If they money isn’t there after the end of Q4, then it’s going to be hard to shrug off the press and the blogs.

      2. Bennet has the bucks behind him so far, Wade, but Romanoff has party support as well as an established “outsider” (ironic as that is). Bennet is most certainly not Mr. Charisma, and Romanoff has a lot of catching up to do and it was needless to wait so long to enter the race so I’d say they’re probably neck-and-neck. Bad idea to count Romanoff out so soon.  

  3. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that Romanoff will do very well from the caucuses all the way to the state convention.  My preliminary polling of activists in HD9 (ie. people who actually go to caucuses in non-election years) so far reveals 50 for Romanoff, 1 likely for Romanoff, 2 undecided, and 1 for Bennet.  At our HD9 breakfast when Romanoff spoke on Saturday, I saw a couple people who didn’t clap for him, so if you throw in those two, that’s 3 for Bennet.

    Romanoff will have the momentum going into the primary, which I believe he will win narrowly.

    1. I have doubt.

      Those activist were probably in favor of Mike Miles, too.  Not that Romanoff is Mike Miles, but activists aren’t representative of primary voters.  We’ve all probably hear Romanoff speak several times and know who he was for years.  The average primary voter has barely heard of him.

      1. Romanoff has a much broader and deeper support among activists who are now and will work a lot for him.  The latest number was 1,500 I think.  Also, Romanoff has a majority of Democratic legislators supporting him, which Miles did not.

        Bennet has no activist support.  In fact, I got a call about one of his events that was from a person with a heavy New York accent–makes me wonder if he’s farming out his work out of state because he has no volunteers.

        1. But that means almost nothing. The vast majority of primary voters are not active in their party. Romanoff needs those people – the few thousand activists are not enough.

          1. … more money to his coffers

            … more positive attention to his campaign.

            … more support from “dem leaders” however you want to define that term.

             

            2. Just because he wins at the caucus. Most will have already chosen sides by that point anyway.

              We’re not saying Romanoff won’t or can’t win. But the idea that what happens at the caucus will have any bearing on what happens in the primary in August is silly. The Miles-Salazar race in 2004 proved that once and for all. Miles won at the state convention, and lost 80-20 in August. Romanoff isn’t Mike Miles, but the point is the same. There are numerous candidates that have lost at the caucus and gone on to win in the primary. The caucus had more importance 20 years ago. It doesn’t matter now.

              1. What happens at the caucuses has every bearing on the primary.

                As for “no Dem leaders” jumping on the Andrew train, that’s not true–over 1/2 of the legislature has announced support for Andrew and many are actively working for him.  I was just at a break the fast and heard a voice mail from Rep. Nancy Todd.  The host of the dinner gave me a $100 check for Andrew.

                So, support for Romanoff is there big time.  Don’t discount it.

              2. Miles came out out of the blue for ,most of us with little to no name recognition.

                Romanoff is the one in this race with all of the name recignition. Bennet has been building his but is still not to Romaff’s level.

        2. Right.  That’s why the launch of his campaign was so amateurish, and why Sen. Bennet, an appointee, leads AR 41-27 before even starting to campaign.  

          1. That’s all that is.  Who are you going to listen to more–an email or ad from an elected official or 2 of your neighbors calling, emailing, standing at your door asking for you to vote for Andrew?  Actually, those are awesome poll numbers considering the race has just begun.

            Romanoff–a few thousand volunteers.

            Bennet–zero volunteers.

            This will make a huge difference.

            2. Another Romanoff guy blowing up his candidate with a bunch of hot air and little facts. Can you provide an actual list of volunteers who have committed to so zealously hitting the pavement for Andrew as you claim? I suppose the 1,500 number comes from the same place as the scientific poll that you ran in HD9 that has Romanoff at 50 to 3. And of course, can you please back up the statement that Michael has no volunteers? I’m sure that you can as you must be privy to the Bennet campaigns e-mail list. This ridiculous mythology that Andrew is some grassroots juggernaut going up against the evil forces of Mt. Doom is gonna get tired real quick.  

            3. You’re misinformed about the number of volunteers Sen. Bennet has relative to how many AR has.  You HAVE read about how disorganized and amateurish AR’s launch was?  Where were all his “volunteers” then?  

              As for name recognition, that was supposed to be one of AR’s advantages.  What happened to that?

              1. Supertrouper, listen, I made the calls, asks, and observations myself–that’s how I got to 51 and 3 on my numbers in HD9.  These are activist Democrats who will work for Andrew through the caucuses and beyond.  Andrew has mentioned the 1500 signups on his website, so it is backed by fact also.

                I have yet to see any large outpouring of activist and volunteer support for Bennet.

                1. I know a little bit about HD-9 (I voted for you in the primary) and it’s not exactly a great sampling of what the Democratic party is like statewide.

                  Bennet has visited all 64 counties, has met with activists and non-activists alike, and has more support than you can see from our little Romanoff-adoring nook of SE Denver.

                  It’s going to take more than Denver to win the Senate primary. Ask Mike Miles about that.

                  At any rate, it’s pretty disingenuous of you to imply that Bennet doesn’t have any activist support.

                    1. I merely reported my findings, which are preliminary and will be ongoing.  However, Romanoff’s report of 1500 volunteers signed up statewide is pretty darn good (again, so far, 2 weeks into the campaign).  So, they’re not just in a little Romanoff-adoring nook in SE Denver.

                      By the way, Redstateblues, thanks for your vote a year ago 🙂

                    2.  about the level of grass roots support AR has, at least in my experience.

                      I have been doing my own unofficial polling (among Dems in Mesa County…and , no, it isn’t a terribly taxing effort since there are so few of us here) and find the elected or appointed Dem officials generally supporting Bennet while the vast majority of “little people” support former Speaker Romanoff.

                      The difference, I will venture, will come down to the real affection the AR supporters seem to have for their candidate. I don’t know if Sen. Bennet can generate that kind of emotional juice in his camp.

                    3. which resulted in the election of our first African-American President.

                      I may have mentioned this anecdote before about Romanoff.  I saw him do something at the 2008 State Dem Convention that I’d never seen an elected official or candidate do before, and don’t expect to see anyone do it the same way in the future.  Romanoff literally spent several HOURS working his way slowly around the World Arena in Springs stopping at each section to talk to a number of people, and have his photo taken with a number of people.  He talked to everyone who wanted to talk to him, and it was hundreds of people.  It was amazing to watch.  It’s Romanoff’s connection to Dems around the state that some folks just don’t seem to know about, or don’t want to recognize.

            4. Paul–you said it is nothing but name recognition on Sen. Bennet’s part, but then “justanotherdem” says Romanoff is the one “with all of the name recignition. [sic]”

              I think you had best coordinate your stories with AR’s almighty campaign!  

              😉

              1. My sense of it that most activists statewide know Romanoff very well and like him a lot.  So, no name recognition problem there.  With regular Democrats who aren’t as active but who vote in primaries, Romanoff has probably somewhat lesser name recognition, probably at or somewhat below Bennet’s right now.

                And I just speak for me.

                1. Fair enough, although I still think it’s amusing that some AR supporters say name recognition is with AR and others with Sen. Bennet, seemingly depending on which point they’re trying to make.  

                  I still think AR’s run is nothing more than a political temper tantrum, designed to make someone offer him an appointed position that he wants.  And in my informal canvassing of my neighbors, most have heard of Sen. Bennet and far fewer have heard of AR.  You can probably guess which way they said they’re likely to vote.

                  Also, I received a phone call from a Romanoff supporter yesterday asking if I would support AR.  When I said I was supporting Sen. Bennet, there was a LONG and pregnant silence, followed by “Well, the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican . . .”  I don’t agree with that sentiment, but I find it instructive as to what AR’s campaign people, and, by extension, AR, think.

        3. He is farming out alot. Quite frankly, he has to. Denver is still too small-town to run a major-league play like what he needs if he’s going to overtake Bennet’s beltway bucks.  

  4. I voted for Bennet as most likely to win but would personally feel more comfortable with Andrew in the Senate.  I have yet to get a handle on where Michael stands on any number of issues.

  5. I think three things combine to make him the (better) nominee:

    First, I think his perceived fundraising advantage will be key, for obvious reasons.  While AR may be able to make some noise around “outside money” and the like, at the end of the day “Vote for me, I’m not as good at fundraising!” is not a winning argument.  Superior fundraising ability obviously allows Sen. Bennet to do a lot more.  While AR has the advantage of only running–he has no other responsibilities at this point that compare with Sen. Bennet’s–he only has so much time and energy to try to offset the money advantage Sen. Bennet is likely to have and maintain.  (I’ve not seen or heard any whispers that AR’s fundraising is competitive with Sen. Bennet’s; that’s why I’m a bit more . . . reserved regarding this point.)

    Second, I think Sen. Bennet has advantages in relating to people that AR does not.  Specifically, he comes across as a pragmatist, and has not yet been painted as a far left liberal.  While I’m sure the GOP will try to do just that, AR has already been painted that way in the state (mostly unfairly, in my view), and I believe Colorado voters are looking for someone who is more pragmatic.  Also, the “family values” crowd will have a very hard time attacking Sen. Bennet, since he is married and has three children.  Without meaning to be offensive to AR, that is more like large chunks of the voting population, and some people will simply be more comfortable with Sen. Bennet.  Also, Sen. Bennet has credible successful experience in the private sector, to say nothing of his experience while Superintendent of DPS, where he interacted with an enormous variety of people.  

    Third, Sen. Bennet has the backing of the national party machines, to say nothing of the endorsement of President Obama.  Again, while AR can make some noise around “outside influences, etc.,” I think that is, overall, a losing argument–you’ll lose more than you gain.  AR has to have some sense that if he goes on to a bitter primary fight and loses, he will be finished at the national level before he even starts.  

    Of course it’s possible that AR’s campaign will suddenly catch fire and take off; and knowing him at least somewhat I strongly suspect he will regain his footing and campaign strongly.  But I just can’t see him catching Sen. Bennet from so far back; and I remember conversations around how difficult it would be for AR to win a statewide election.  I don’t see how any of those difficulties have been reduced, and I see him running against someone who is very smart, who is very personable, very educated, very thoughtful, and who comes across as pragmatic and moderate.  

    1. Your preference says it all, Aaron. Who would honestly take Bennet over Romanoff? For that matter, who would take Ritter if they had the choice of someone else to pick from?

        1. I can’t defend Romanoff. Don’t know him personally. Professionally, I see sloppy mistakes that even a pastry chef running for office wouldn’t make, especially with his “golden boy” appeal and connections. That being said, Bennet lulls me into a narcoleptic stupor with his lack of commitment and passion every time he opens his mouth. His appearances are a good cure for insomnia. Put on a Bennet address or speech and catch some solid z’s. First, he’s against unions and healthcare reform, than when Romanoff announces, he’s for everything he was against. Please.

          If Bennet is such a genius, he’d know to take some classes and not flop back and forth on key issues and expect people not to remember his actions. It’s not working well for Ritter, either.  

  8. If he caucuses, he risks not getting what he needs to get on the ballot, as he has very few ties to those in the process and isn’t familiar with how the process works.  Romanoff could easily out flank him in a caucus and might even prevent a primary.

    Bennet needs to sponsorship of the Governor who appointed him to get him through the process, and the Governor’s clout in that process, while enough to get him nominated with no serious opposition, is not going to be the boost for Bennet that it usually would be.  Normally, an incumbent Democratic appointee of a governor would be a shoe in and a foregone conclusion.  Bennet is nothing close that image of inevitability.

    If Bennet petitions, he has to spend a fair amount of resources doing so, and virtually guarantees Romanoff an easy and less expensive spot on the primary ballot.

    If we do have a primary, and there usually is one when a party has two reasonably serious candidates, then Romanoff has a name recognition edge and his early stumbles in the eyes of caucus goers, like card check, may not matter much.  Greater Denver, where he is best known, is thick with primary voters.  Bennet is going to need to spend mone than Romanoff in a primary to get the same results.

    1. hmm-  “…isn’t familiar with how the process works.”

      That seems unfair. I mean, the party should have some kind of written record or transcript  that explains how it works. You know some kind of document.

      “Greater Denver, where he is best known, is thick with primary voters.”

      So, his message should be Vote for me- more people in Denver metro have heard of me.

      Seems thin.  I mean hey- it could work to get the nomination. But then we end up with an R in the seat. Think how much unfun that would be.

      I agree, bennet will have to spend more. Luckily, he’ll have it to spend.

    2. ..chief among them your opinion that Bennet has no one around him familiar with the caucus process.  Certainly Bennet has long planned to go through the caucus process.  That AR has entered doesn’t change this.  Why would Bennet’s committed supporters suddenly leave him now….especially given the other ($$$) dynamics that exist in the race?

      1. supporters.  Plenty of folks were willing to support him against a Republican when he was the only person running.  But, I think AR has more loyal backing.

        And, there is a huge difference between simply knowing the rules of the caucus and really knowing what it takes to win in that process and making the one on one connections with the people who are important to do that.  You have to know who the influentials are at a very detailed level, what arguments who in a caucus setting, and how the rules and the reality differ (often regionally).

        Jared Polis is no fool and has a long standing involvement in Colorado politics, but seriously fumbled some of his caucus process meetings.  On the other hand, Obama’s campaign, a newcomer to Colorado, did a brilliant job in that process relative to Clinton’s campaign.  

  9. Andrew announced on September 16 but filed papers earlier to start raising money.

    If Bennet raises more money from September 16 to October 1 that will be one sign that the support for Andrew is not too deep. One thing to talk big still another to right a big check or even a small one. Compare this to Barack Obama who had grass roots Democrats writing checks even when he was down in the polls in 2007.  

  10. “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

    Abraham Lincoln February 27, 1860

    The Latino vote in Colorado is the swing vote.  I believe Romanoff will appeal to them much more than Bennet.  Romanoff’s Spanish is impeccable and will very much impress Latinos even if they are not bilingual.  It worked for Salazar, it will work for Romanoff.

    1. Really? Andrew will win the Latino vote b/c he speaks Spanish? Huh? You really think the Latino community is that surface level? Perhaps speaking in nuestra langua will help Andrew better explain to our comunidad why he put politics above principles during that arcane special session and not making tuition equity a priority while he was in office. There is a solid reason why so many immigrant rights groups and Latino organization leaders have already thrown ther support to Bennet. They care more about policy and electing a candidate that has already shown that he cares about issues important to Latinos than one who can posture to them en Espanol.  

      1. I find the comparison you made between Salazar’s appeal to the community and Romanoff’s completely ignorant and a bit offensive. Ken was not a rockstar to Latinos b/c he spoke Spanish. Duh. He was incredibly popular among Latinos b/c he is a Latino with deep roots in Colorado. It meant a great deal to our community to be able to support a latino candidate for the high office of U.S. Senator. A seat that had never before been filled by a Latino in this state. It kind of grosses me out that you would ignore that fact in your assesment of the current primary.  

    2. of condescending bullshit.

      Maybe he can explain, in Spanish, his role in the special session that he helped set up, that basically fucked over the community you swear is going to blindly swear allegiance to the guy because he’s bilingual. Do you really think the Latino community is so one note?  You needn’t bother to reply. Your comment already tells us all that it’s exactly what you think.

      1. ….I’ve struck a nerve. And yes, I will bother to reply.  Condescending?  Not so sure about that, however you and super pooper seem to take great license in speaking for the entire Latino community.  No one said “just because” regarding potential Hispanic support for Romanoff. However, it is a very logical conclusion. If one were to take the effort to read Bennet’s and Romnanoff’s resumes, for that matter throw in Salazar’s and Aberto Gonzales, Romanoff’s bio looks pretty darn good against all three and in the case of Bennet and Salazar?  Lights are on, nobody’s home, someone needs to go to back to resume school.  Don’t take my word for it, you can be a research monkey, too.  Keep throwing that weak shit about a special session, I hope that’s not all you got.  I saw a lot of very prominent Latinos supporting Romanoff in Pueblo.  Guess you had to be there.  Not sure I “sweared” anything about blind allegiance, I did however point out an asset of Romanoff’s, his ability to speak very good Spanish.  And if that’s not good enough, he’s a very handsome man and that’s about as “surface level?” (huh?) as many voters are.

        Please tell me something good about Bennet so that I can vent my spleen and get to say “Fucked” “grosses me out” “condesending”.  

        Take this to the bank, “victoria arrolladora”  

    3. No mames, guey!  Aun si Romanoff pudiera explicar todas las leyes anti-inmigrantes que patrocinГі durante la sesion especial (y sinceramente dudo que serГ­a posible), todavia eso no cambiarГ­a el hecho de que POR CAUSA de las leyes que puso Romanoff, familias a traves de todo Colorado han sido impactadas negativamente. Estudiantes no pueden estudiar en las universidades, padres indocumentados de hijos ciudadanos tienen aun mas miedo llevar sus hijos al doctor, etc etc.  

      Y, uhm…. Salazar no ganГі porque hablaba espaГ±ol sino porque ES LATINO.  Y ahora la familia Salazar esta apoyando a BENNET.  

      Estoy de acuerdo contigo sobre el hecho de que nosotros somos el swing vote.  Y sabes que???



      VAMOS CON BENNET!!!!        

  11. At this point I think that it is a fairly level playing field.  I voted for Romanoff because he is my pick so far and I do foresee him doing better among party activists and in the caucuses.  I also think that if the President’s approval numbers and Ritter’s numbers continue to fall, Bennet would be more likely to be pulled down as well.  If the President and Congress get a small boost after the healthcare debate gets sorted out though, then I could see Bennet’s star rising again.

  12. Is support for Romanoff when Ritter was deciding vs support for Romanoff in a primary. Romanoff pretty clearly had a plurality of activists supporting him for the appointment.

    He has a lot fewer supporting him in a primary.

    1. He waited, and his lack of decisiveness is now Mike Bennet’s gain.

      Count me as someone who would have gladly supported Romanoff in January or February. People waited, and waited, and when it looked like no challenge was forthcoming they decided to get to know Bennet. A lot of them started out wanting to hate him, but he won them over. He did that without a primary too.

      I think that a lot of Romanoff’s hard-core supporters are totally underestimating Bennet. How that’s possible given what he’s accomplished in the short time he’s been a senator is hard for me to fathom, but it appears to be happening–and it’s a huge mistake.

          1. …You can point to ZERO accomplishments as a Senator, but raising beaucoup out of state bucks is a better achievement than those of someone who is currently out of office?

            Lofty standards, those.

            Romanoff is educating some of our children, BTW.

            1. I didn’t want to have to run down the list for you. You can teh google I presume, but here you go:

              1. Co-sponsor of the DREAM act

              2. Voted yes on President Obama’s stimulus and budget.

              3. Visited all 64 counties in Colorado.

              4. Making the hard sell on other Democratic legislation like cap and trade to farmers in rural Colorado.

              5. Held town hall meetings in areas of the state a little less friendly than HD-6. Making the hard sell on Obama’s health care reform plan to the people who need to be sold on it.

              6. Strong supporter of public option, before Romanoff was even an afterthought.

              7. Strong supporter of CHIP re authorization, which provides health care to millions of under insured children.

              8. Voted yes on the Lily Ledbetter Pay Act.

              All of that is in just 8 months of being in the Senate.

              But just to turn it around: in the time that Bennet has been in the Senate, can you give me a list of Romanoff’s accomplishments? Hell, I’ll even give you the last year and a half since he’s been out of office. He graduated law school, got a DLC fellowship (how progressive!) and started running for Senator. That’s about it.

              1. …His zero chance of passing bill to reign in deficit spending.

                I think accomplishing something would include passing tough bills, not party line votes (Ledbetter, stimulus, sCHIP.)  As a Dem, he’s supposed to vote yes on those.

                The DREAM act is a brave stand, which could cost him votes in the general election, but it’s never going to pass, and I doubt he’s pressing the flesh in Congress getting people to sign on.

                Whether he’s been a STRONG supporter of the public option is debatable, as this site clearly demonstrates, but his “I don’t think we’ve got the votes” is not a brave leadership position.

                Touring the state in support of his party’s agenda is not an accomplishment, IT’s HIS JOB!!!  When healthcare reform passes due to support from the people whose minds he’s changed, then it can be counted as an accomplishment.

                Re: Andrew, he did organize and campaign for amendment 59 to cut the state’s fiscal Gordian Knot, though since it failed that can’t be counted as an accomplishment.  It was however the kind of difficult bipartisan work for which he is known.

                I’m sure both guys would be decent Senators, but Bennett doesn’t strike me as the bold leadership type.  He’s had nine months of OJT, and he could develop into a very good Senator.  Or not.  Everyone I know who has met him says he’s intelligent, thoughtful, sincere and passionate.  Those are great qualitites, but not in themselves sufficient for being a good politician.

                Andrew has a track record, and Bennett does not.  It’s only reasonable to question what he’s accomplished besides getting up to speed.

                1. This whole thing got started with you saying that the only thing Michael Bennet has accomplished in 8 months in the senate is raising money. I showed some things that he’s done in less than a year.

                  So where’s your bullet point list for Romanoff? I’ve seen him credited with Referendum C, but that had just as much to do with Cary Kennedy, Bill Owens, and John Hickenlooper as it does with Andrew Romanoff.

                  So far we’ve got law school, failed A-59, and started a Senate campaign. Where has he been on the important issues in the last two years? You’d think that if they were as important to him as they are to us, he wouldn’t have gone into hiding since the Democrats got back into power.

                  Where was his bipartisan track record when Republicans spent the last 8 months trying to destroy everything we’ve worked so hard to create? He’s been silent on health care, silent on economic recovery, silent on virtually every issue that’s important to Democrats–that is, of course, until he decided he was going to run for Senate.

                  A lot of people have been saying that the primary will be good because it will push Bennet more to the left to appeal to the base. I think it’s looking more like it will be a good thing because it will force Andrew Romanoff to start being a leader again–because he hasn’t been since A-59 went down the tubes.

                  2. …for someone who doesn’t hold office?

                    Is he supposed to hold a weekly press conference to denounce the right wing spin machine?  Be the spine the Dems don’t have when he doesn’t hold any power?

                    How would such actions look to elected officials who do hold power?

                    What are your expectations for a term-limited ex-pol who doesn’t hold office?

                  3. This whole thing got started with you saying that the only thing Michael Bennet has accomplished in 8 months in the senate is raising money.

                    No, this whole thing got started when you were trumpeting what Bennett has accomplished, and I don’t think it ammounts to an impressive resume yet.

                    1. I still think that if there’s going to be a primary, then both candidates should be held to the same standard.

  13. …I expect that everyone will play nice and not burn bridges with crazy predictions and ridiculous descriptions of the people and the reasons why.  It’s just one election….I know people won’t lose their damn minds and ruin relationships they’ve spent years building.

    Pollyanna, out.

  14. Bennet by a long shot. Bennet will have an enviable record with votes for a health care bill, the  Dream Act and (possibly) energy reform. These are all things that will start to change the minds of those who want Romanoff just because they like him. Bennet will also steamroll with his fundraising this next quarter. AR will be stuck getting donations from the David Sirota’s and Wade Norris’ of the party, not the average Democrat.

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

98 readers online now

Newsletter

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