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%
October 16, 2009 06:37 PM UTC
103 Comments
But he is a nice guy
But then I wondered, why the hell did they jump the gun and send out a release that ended up understating their fundraising by almost thirty percent?
Just to let you get an idea of the magnitude of the error of the $200K preliminary announcement by Romanoff, it would be like Bennet announcing on October 1st $686K raised then saying he really raised $1.004M on October 15th.
One of Andrew’s other top advisors is his cousin, Melissa. She’s influencing a lot of the day-to-day and messaging decisions on that campaign, but she really doesn’t have the clout or experience to run a state-wide campaign.
I think Andrew can win just like Jared Polis won. But it took Jared hiring a bitter, yet effective, manager who wanted a lot of money and knew how to manage. Wanda was talented, and I value her input to the discussion, but it took Becker to win. In that same vein, Melissa, Sue Casey, all have their respective skill sets. But can they win? Probably not as easily as someone who’s got the gusto to drive the candidate.
I’m supporting Andrew’s bid for the US Senate. Because of that, I seriously hope he has a few staff shakeups.
“I’m supporting Andrew’s bid for the US Senate”
Why?
Besides he’s a nice guy and you wish he wouldhave been appointed instead of Bennet.
Differentiate him for me. So far, all anyone has said is the fluff COPols quoted above, and the, at best overreaching suggestion that AR’s entrance moved Bennet on a public option, a suggestion that has been debunked several times here and at least once, sort of, 1/2 way in the Post.
I wish Ed Perlmutter had been appointed instead of Bennet.
I am supporting Andrew because I think that he has the legislative experience to be an effective Senator for our state for a 6 year period of time, after which we can review his accomplishments. In terms of electability against a Republican next November, of course Bennet is, as it stands, the better choice. That’s the blessing of incumbency. And he’s been a good Senator. If he is elected to a 6 year term, perhaps he’ll prove to me that he has the same legislative chops that AR has been boasting about. This isn’t a matter of ideology, be it the public option or cap and trade. This is about my opinion regarding who will accomplish more for my state during their term.
Also, Andrew’s a real nice guy.
we’re having a primary – at least in your view- because AR was a state legislator for several years already, even though he may be less electable in the general?
You do understand that primaries cost money and are sometimes a serious negative to the nominee?
And, most importantly, that if the R nominee wins there will be no D votes from the seat for a long, long time?
Because there is a declared candidate running against the incumbent who has enough name ID and legitimacy to alter the discussion and initiate a bona fide election.
Really, there’s no need to condescend to me, MADCO. I understand all the risks of a primary. I understand that there is also a general election because of the nature of the state. These are all risks I’m willing to take with my support because I’d like our Congressional Delegation to be the best possible for our state. And if we end up with a Republican Senator, so what?
Look at what happened last year. All that Obama vs. Hillary stuff just made everyone bitter and tired of politics. They all stayed home, didn’t volunteer or vote, ran out of money to donate, and we ended up with McCain as our President. All because of that damn primary.
Oh sorry… I was stuck in an alternate reality for a minute.
As I’ve posted before – sometimes primaries are a good thing, sometimes they are a bad thing and sometimes they are nothing with regard to the eventual nominee and the general election. And it’s still too soon to know which this one will be.
But I would suggest that there are major differences between the 08 Democratic Presidential primary and this one. For one thing- I’m pretty sure Texas doesn’t get to vote here.
We had a President that tortured people, started wars without thinking, took our individual liberties away, made the national debt soar, favored fundamentalist thought over science, violated our constitution, (probably) fixed elections, stole from the poor and gave to the rich, and so much more. People were voted at least as much by hating Bush as they were for loving Barack Obama.
This year, CO has a progressive Senator in Michael Bennet, who also happens to be respected for his financial smarts. CO has no need to support a challenger. That is a whole lot different than 2008.
I fail to see how my stated lack of comprehension is condescension toward you.
You like AR. You support his primary challenge. You acknowledge that Senator Bennet has a stronger electability profile for the general and that he’s been a good Senator.
You don’t see how it matters if we end up with a R holding the seat for several years.
Oh… I see now.
Romanoff is making Bennet look really good right now.
Yeah, and there’s a boy in a flying saucer over Weld County . . .
Whatever Romanoff does, or does not do, makes Romanoff look good, or not. Whatever Bennet does, or does not do, makes Bennet look good, or not.
The case you make keenly illustrates the passion Andrew inspires within an absolute vacuum of common sense. That takes talent.
Bennet is more elelectable. And what good would Andrew’s legislative chops be if he isn’t actually elected? If this is the best Skyler, Sue Casey and other Romanoff supporters can do, please remind us again why we should all be put through this exercise for the sake of having a choice between two maybe mildly left of centrists, one already an incumbent with tons of money, the other someone who thinks he should have been the chosen unelected one? As for nice guyness, seems like Romanoff is losing any particular edge there, too.
largely in part because of the staffing errors on AR’s behalf.
I suppose I should clarify. I prefer Andrew Romanoff. If, however, Michael Bennet turns out to be our nominee, then I will wholeheartedly work on behalf of Michael. And if he continues to appear to be the more electorally sound candidate as we edge closer and closer to the election, then I will inevitably have to re-evaluate my support.
But it’s early.
most of his fans have a bit more fire in the belly for him than you do
Romo has already made a few mis-steps which make me question the credibility of his campaign.
Like I said, it’s early.
I find it increases your credibility and tend to take what you have to say more seriously than some of Romanoff’s other supporters.
And yes, it is very early in the game but for Romanoff, it’s also starting to get to be quite late for him to continue to misstep.
Anyway, I gotta support a fellow Arby’s lover.
It doesn’t even look like anything resembling actual beef on TV! But then I treat myself to a twinkie once a year on my birthday so who am I to judge?
God, I love Arby’s. I don’t know what it is-if it’s the beef, the Horsie Sauce or the Arby’s sauce but God, I’d kill somebody for an Arby’s.
Seriously http://www.arbys.com/nutrition…
filling, I, like it, will have a near immortal shelf life. Between Arby’s and Twinkies I’d say that makes it advantage twinkies.
You gain its power.
Underground journalist Paul Krassner coined the famous term “Twinkie defense” during the trial of Dan White, who shot and killed SF Mayor George Moscone and city supervisor Harvey Milk:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Then we need to eat to tootsie rolls. I believe tootsie rolls are forever.
You’ve officially just broken my heart.
Are they running a campaign at Romanoff’s office or out back playing bongos around a campfire singing “He’s a jolly good fellow”?
I’m thinking it’s a lot more than one meaningless email. Maybe that statement should be more than just what you’d expect on a website and more like “that’s what you’d expect from someone running for the state legislature” PERIOD.
From what I’m seeing and hearing from people the amateur hour isn’t just when they’re writing emails. Too bad too. Andrew is a good guy who might make a great Senator but I’m afraid HMV Romanoff is on its way to resembling HMS Titanic. I was at least hoping to be entertained by a good race but this could be over before it’s begun. Starting to look like Romanoff may go out just the way Josie Heath did when Sue Casey ran that and Casey’s own campaign for mayor.
I’ve heard from a few people that there really is no campaign other than Sue Casey, Joelle Martinez, a bunch of volunteers and some big consultants out of DC. You’d think with six months to think about jumping in that they would have at least found their campaign staff. Unless they don’t plan on having campaign staff. I have heard that Casey is planning to bring some people in from back East. The one name I got that my friend asked me to check out was Simon Behrmann who is supposedly organizing their events and grassroots. When I searched for him all I could find was that was the controller for Kerry and ran one race in Chicago that he lost badly in a primary. I didn’t know Melissa was one of his top advisors. If true that’s scary. I’ve heard she’s a nice girl but only has a couple years experience in politics and moved to Colorado just to help Andrew so I don’t know how much she could really advise him about running a Senate race in Colorado. A couple of people I know that were trying to help have pretty much given up after being ignored or dealing with amateurs.
Miracles can happen but unless Romanoff can come up with something other than “I’m still mad at Ritter” or “I’m a really nice guy” I think this one may be over in time for Romanoff to enjoy a winter vacation. But hey, maybe he can pick up a bongo with the others and let the campfire keep him warm on those snowy days.
AR is a reasonably nice guy. But so far he has utterly failed to provide any discernable reason to vote for him in preference to an incumbent Senator who clearly has the ear and support of the President and the Senate leadership.
At last check, there is no explanation of any difference between AR’s views and Sen. Bennet’s on AR’s website. He raised about 60% of what an even later entering GOP candidate raised, and he has, if he is competent at all (which I believe him to be), already plucked all the “low hanging fruit” that there is for him. He trails Sen. Bennet more than 10 to 1 in cash on hand, and his vaunted “grass roots” support has yet to materialize.
More and more, I think the initial reaction to his running is correct: That it is no more than a fit of political pique, the equivalent of a temper tantrum that he was not appointed. Perhaps he is simply running a primary to build up a war chest for future federal campaigns, or, more cynically, to improve the position he is offered by the administration. Probably a combination of both, for the inevitable day when DeGette leaves the House.
He can be graceful, withdraw and move just a little south.
Then announce he’s challenging Coffman.
I’ll quit my day job to work for him- and get a dozen useful neighbors to do the same. (And they’ll each get a dozen who will get a dozen…. and that’s 1400 people working hard for him.)
we CD6 Dems could get behind! Of course it would have been better to relocate sooner. The grassroots enthusiasm for a real candidate like Andrew, instead of the usual sacrificial lambs, would be off the charts. Win or lose, it would be great for fund raising and turn out for all the races.
The only message that counts in a campaign against an incumbent is why the incumbent should be fired.
All messages about why any challenger should be hired depend on the electorate being convinced that there is a reason to consider the challenger over the incumbent.
‘He was appointed by the Governor’ and ‘Coloradans should be able to chose their senator’ are not credible reasons to fire the incumbent. The law prescribes the gubernatorial appointment of a U.S. Senator to fill a vacancy. And Coloradans do get to choose, on election day.
Regular primary voters – people who don’t follow politics – don’t care about this insider line of attack. Activists do care, but there aren’t enough of those to win Romanoff a primary.
And, more to my point, nowhere near enough to win the general.
The email also linked to an an interview Andrew did yesterday morning on AM760 that featured his campaign messaging. The email was to his supporters so it didn’t necessarily focus on messaging. On the 9News Your Show, Caplis & Silverman, AM760, etc., he has conveyed his message.
Because they’re the people who are going to be repeating it. People who support Romanoff don’t know what to say about why he would be better than Bennet in large part because Romanoff’s campaign doesn’t tell them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Several things come through loud and clear:
– he’s an experienced legislator
– he knows Colorado
– D insiders like him- and others will too
– he’s a heckofa nice guy
Or said another way-
– Andrew knows how to lead.
– He has a record of solving problems and crafting solutions to tough problems.
– Andrew’s career has been all about bringing people together to make a difference in the lives of hard working people here in Colorado.
– Andrew is someone all Coloradans can count on to make their concerns his cause.
I think CoPols makes a great point.
And the answers are great pivots into re-direction. I don’t buy it- you can’t campaign on a 8 1/2 minute speech that kicked off the campaign and yesterdays AM760 softball interview that no one heard or will hear (No offense DS.)
If I would have said all of that, you would have said that I made it up or whatever. Plus, I’m trying to eat lunch! 🙂
It’s the campaign’s job. Don’t be so hard on yourself.
So the campaign can have a message
The message I’ve heard multiple times from Romanoff supporters has focused on “Andrew’s really smart and is a good leader,” with nothing more substantive, and then thereafter devolves into insulting, high-schoolish comments about Michael Bennet.
That gets old real fast. And it’s no way to run a campaign.
I’ve previously written about this, but it is appropriate in this discussion:
I received a phone call from AR’s campaign, and when I said I am supporting Sen. Bennet, there was a LONG pregnant pause, followed by the statement “Well, the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.” Quite aside from not agreeing with the sentiment expressed, I think that says a great deal about AR and his supporters, and none of it is good. I find that nothing short of sad, since AR is, as I mentioned previously, a reasonably good guy.
It’s a hell of a turnoff. I fear Romanoff is getting his ideas of how to run a campaign from the likes of some of his supporters here. God help him and his campaign if he takes an ounce of their behavior or advice seriously.
One can easily surmise that Bennet is in the pockets of corporations by looking at his contributions but I don’t like him because I see through him and I don’t like what I see.
For one he voted against the cram-down which showed how little he knows about what is going down economically as well as politically.
He also only showed weak support for the public option until Andrew Romanoff got into the race and he has not taken a stand on the EFCA. He doesn’t represent me and he won’t represent you if he is elected. He’ll be another Ritter.
Also Colorado Pols you have been hard on Andrew Romanoff but you were wrong about your assessment of Bill Winter against Tom Tancredo. Bill Winter pulled in 40% of the vote in one of the most conservative districts in our state. Perhaps if you had given him an accurate assessment he might have won. I’m just saying you have a lot of power.
And why are you replying to me? Learn to read a fucking thread.
The return of Mcpc?
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Then again, when am I? 🙂
I am sick to death of hearing this lie, “Michael Bennet only showed weak support for the public option until Andrew Romanoff got into the race”. The Bennet campaign and many health care activists have videos of him at events saying “Health care insurance reform is a moral obligation” in JUNE. Ask the health care groups — he has been an outspoken advocate for the public option for many months. Don’t believe me – call the campaign and ask for the date and a link for the video.
I get tired of misinformation being spread like wildfire. I don’t have any problem with real arguments about the qualities of the two candidates, but let’s not make up stuff or pass on fabrications, shall we?
is that why the email focused on that fact?
It was to link to the interview and invite them to some events.
I’m guessing lanman2k is one of those insiders I’ve been acknowledging all along that likes AR and would have preferred if AR had been appointed back when.
At which point we would be hearing about how primaries are so unnecessary.
to find out what a challenger’s message is. It’s on the challenger, not on the public. You don’t need earplugs or blinders at this point to miss it. You need to take a lot of trouble to go looking for it. Nowhere near enough people are so inclined.
That’s no way to challenge. For how to mount a challenge, see Sestak. Romanoff is no Sestak. And even a challenger like Sestak is still a long shot.
Hey- we’re all trying to eat lunch. Now I gotta clean my keyboard.
in the general way of things but Sestak is all over cable and progressive radio with his clearly insurgent campaign. Nobody has to wonder what the difference is between him and Specter. Nobody who is paying any attention needs to go look it up. And I’m sorry about the keyboard. Really.
which is higher than Romanoff’s.
just kiddiing.
hanging out with Josh Penry’s budget plan.
when two candidates in a primary have virtually no ideological gap between them. This campaign isn’t about differences on the issues, policy, or things of a philosophical nature. The e-mail merely confirms what many have been positing here for a while now–it’s all about personality.
Regardless of the reasons, if Romanoff can continue to raise enough money, there’s going to be a primary election next August. If, when that election comes, Romanoff pulls a Mike Miles and Bennet wins by a landslide, it will cast serious doubt as to whether AR can run a serious campaign again in the future. It will almost certainly make Bill Ritter look like a genius because the unknown he picked did a number on the “people’s choice”. That’s a ways away, but everyone knows that without a clear message, pretty much any campaign is DOA.
It’s incredibly vital that Romanoff’s campaign craft that message immediately, because AR doesn’t just have a Senate race to be competitive in right now, his political future is at stake.
“I was appointed to this job despite the fact that I never ran for any office any time and no one has the right to run against me” is not exactly inspiring.
Other than invoking the divine right of rich kids, tell me again why I am being ordered to vote for Bennet?
then. Order revoked.
That isn’t Micheal’s message–that is merely the converse of AR’s. Which brings us right back to Andrew’s dilemma–what distinguishes him enough from the incumbent to encourage enough primary voters to pick him over Bennet?
Sour grapes among his hard-core supporters does nothing, other than turn undecided folks like me off. I already made it through middle school and don’t care to have a Sen who remains there (or whose reporters remain there).
Did you mean “supporters?” Those of us who excelled in spelling in Middle School want to know!
At least, you say you’re undecided. AR would not have been my choice for the appointment, Hickenlooper would have been. And if he’d been named, there would have been no talk of a primary and he’d have been a shoo-in in November, 2010.
But I know both Bennet and AR well, and consider Romanoff by far the more experienced and qualified. I find the sense of entitlement braying from the Bennetistas stiffling.
but yes I meant ‘supporters.’ Brain fart.
Point still stands. I am undecided but unless AR does something to convince me he is the better candidate on the issues that matter to me, I will vote for Bennet.
AR seems to have a sense of entitlement of his own, and that is the ‘fire in his belly’ that is provoking him to run. The whole ‘it should have been Andrew’ meme might enthuse his supporters, but I don’t see it winning a primary.
And yes I find it quite amateurish.
But aren’t you a Republican?
If so, are you forgoing voting in the GOP primary, changing your affiliation to Democratic, and then voting for Romanoff? If you’re staying Republican, you’ll get your choice between whoever gets nominated from each part like everyone else in the general.
I digress…
If anyone has a sense of entitlement to the job, it’s Romanoff. AR was a part of the appointment process like everyone else who submitted their application, he wasn’t picked, and then he started talking about how the people deserve to make a choice. He’s not running because he thinks he’d be much different as far as voting record goes (or at least, if he is, he hasn’t shared that with anyone publicly.)
Bennet’s message is actually pretty simple. Go to his website, and you’ll see a consistent theme–fighting for Colorado families, leaving this country a better place for his children than he found it, and that pragmatic and independent thinking can bring about true change in Washington–if you want to see where he is on the issues, check out the issues page of his website. I like what he says about health care a lot. It’s the core of why I support him for Senate:
By contrast, Andrew Romanoff has no issues page on his website. His personal statement:
That paragraph is the closest thing he has to a message. It’s a fine statement, and it’s everything I’ve grown to admire about Andrew Romanoff. However, he needs more than that to have a message. Right now, between his meatless message, and his surrogates’ smear campaign, this whole thing is shaping into high comedy.
of the pachyderm persuasion, though in recent years I am more and more a man without a party and voted for Obama rather than Sarah Palin’s running mate. I am indeed thinking of switching and, if I do, it will be for the purpose of voting for Romanoff. I simply find Bennet to be a bright and rather well meaning person who is wholly unqualified for the job. As far as “fighting for Colorado families, leaving this country a better place for his children than he found it” , yada, yada, I think we both know that is political boilerplate. With the exception of Douglas Bruce, I can’t think of any politician who openly fights against families and deliberately wants to leave the state worse than he found it. The point is, what are your abilities that could make you accomplish this worthy things. Romanoff, as both minority leader and speaker, showed very impressive leadership skills. Bennet has impressed exactly one voter in his life, Bill Ritter. Yet, the Bennet minions, including Colorado Pols, scream that anyone who seeks the office in his own right is commiting near treason against the Democratic party. Maybe it’s time the Democrats started paying a little attention to democracy.
They’ve actually been far more objective than most of the Polsters IMO. This is simply their reaction to the e-mail, and a lot of people–including Romanoff supporters–agree that this isn’t up to snuff.
You say that my paraphrasing of Bennet’s message is political boilerplate, but I disagree. I think those are actually the reasons he’s running. If you think that’s boilerplate, then surely you must agree that the recent e-mail was worse than that.
I’m glad that you’re switching parties though. It’s always good to have another Democrat, and switching to vote for Andrew Romanoff is understandable–I probably would have done the same if I hadn’t been won over by Bennet.
As long as both sides can promise to support the eventual nominee, then I don’t think that there’s a huge problem. As long as we stay away from the personal insults and condescension, then we won’t have to worry about having a Sen. Buck or Sen. Norton.
I agree that the quote Bennet has is as much political drivel as Romanoff’s but Bennet does have a lot more substance beyond that. I’d think Romanoff will soon but it’s pretty inexcusable he wasn’t more prepared with some of that when he announced he was running. This isn’t the city council or state house, it’s the US Senate!
As far as the people who complain that Romanoff shouldn’t challenge the sitting Senator or as you put it “is committing near treason” I think that’s a fairly small group and I put them in the same category as the wankers who scream that Romanoff deserves it and Bennet is illegitimate.
I think the “should he run or not” is totally separate from “is he showing he’s competent to run?” If what he’s shown in his campaign choices to date is similar to how he’d make decisions as a Senator, I think people are right to wonder what kind of Senator he’d be. Being a Senator is as much about how you make decisions, run your Senate office and function within the politics of the Senate as it is about legislating.
I think he is getting a lot of pressure from the DLC who have been successful in controlling the Democratic Party until the progressives came along. I have never liked this corporatist arm of the Democratic Party and it almost seems like Romanoff is being pressured into being a “nice guy”. He needs to grow some or he’s not going to have a chance.
Romanoff is a DLC FELLOW! it’s in his freaking bio!
before love came to town.
Nobody is ordering you to vote one way or the other (and frankly unlike a lot of the regulars here, I’m still undecided). But the point is, however Bennet got there, right or wrong, he has a record as a Senator. You either like it, in which case you vote for his reelection, or you don’t like it, in which case you vote for a challenger who will do things differently. So it goes. Until Romanoff makes this essential anti-incumbent argument, he can’t convince anyone else to vote for him.
I can give you plenty of reasons not to vote for Bennet but if you look close enough there is a pattern in his statements and voting record. He will follow in Ken Salazar’s and Bill Ritter’s footsteps. If you are happy with the way they turned out then you should support Bennet but if you want something different you should support Andrew Romanoff.
I really don’t care what Bennet says now it’s what he did before Andrew Romanoff got into the picture that has turned me off to Bennet as our Senator. And it didn’t help that Ritter appointed him without a care as to what the people wanted.
How is Romanoff “something different” from Sen. Bennet?
Frankly, Bennet’s a better choice, because he has exactly the kind of connections and relationships that Romanoff lacks. Whether you like that or not, that makes Sen. Bennet the better choice–and never mind that his resume makes Romanoff’s look amateurish. Rather like his campaign, come to think of it . . .
It is these ties that you speak of that have bothered me from the beginning. Bennet has lots of money from special interests and that has me very concerned. When are we going to stop this pattern of corporatist governing that has taken this country down?
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
Andrew should have and still should run for Governor
That would make AR look Frazier-esque crazy!
I gotta admit, whoever wrote this sophomoric piece of fish-wrap shouldn’t be an “advisor” to anyone but a child.
ColoradoPols is right that this is a weak, embarrassing piece of whatever it is. The very same could be said of my mother.
# My mother knows how to lead.
# She has a record of solving problems and crafting solutions to tough problems.
# My mother’s career has been all about bringing people together to make a difference in the lives of hard working people here in Colorado.
# My mom is someone all Coloradans can count on to make their concerns his cause.
Very sad that the messaging is off to such a wobbly, incoherent start. True, after so many years of being around, Romanoff should have a pretty strong brand. He doesn’t. He should have real selling points that point to real things he has done. He doesn’t.
Romanoff is a professional, but this is amateur-night. Bang the frickin’ gong.
His mom is all those things and I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.
why is everyone denigrating the very message Obama used when he ran for pres? I recall advertisements on the radio for BO that are almost verbatim to the message put out by AR.
on his website.
He’s reversed himself on much of it.
not sure what you mean by ‘reversed.’
Please elaborate.
He said he didn’t “pal around with unrepentant terrorists” and turns out that’s what he does every morning after breakfast.
Or something.
Obama is a once in a lifetime politician. Romanoff is (was? I’m still holding out hope he can get his act together) a great voice for Colorado, but he is not Obama. Just like Michael Bennet isn’t Hillary Clinton. Not even close.
They’re two entirely different people, whose backgrounds are not even comparable to two of the most dynamic and brilliant leaders the Democratic Party has ever known.
Other than the fact that it’s a high-profile primary (which is probably a stretch too) there’s not much to compare.
Also, Obama was raking in cash hand over fist, while Hillary had to loan her campaign money to survive. If Romanoff was raising the big bucks, he might be able to get by on soaring rhetoric alone.
Romanoff to BO, I was comparing their messages, and questioning why, when dems were perfectly happy with that type of message from BO, did they suddenly do a u-turn and trash the very same message from AR.
People vote for someone they know, trust, respect and feel good about….none of those apply to Bennet.
when people comment that it appears Andrew is running because he feels like a jilted high school prom date, none of his supporters say “Not True! He’s running because he has a better plan for… or because his position is better on…” or whatever?
It’s always because he’s ‘the people’s choice’ or because people ‘know, trust and respect’ him. I don’t ‘know’ Andrew or Micheal, sure I’ve met them both, sat down, talked some issues, but I don’t know either of them enough to determine who I ‘know, trust, and respect’ more. And I know them better than most primary voters I’d wager.
I am undecided, but I need a reason, a reason, something tangible, to not vote for Bennet. Something, anything, here I am, an undecided voter definitely voting in the primary–Andrew convince me!
That you got stood up by the Gov ain’t doing it. He stood me up too. So what? Why will YOU, Andrew Romanoff be a better Senator, better able to beat Jane (not Gale) Norton? How will YOU, Andrew Romanoff, better represent Colorado? You had better bring some game because so far it is sorely, sorely, sorely lacking.
It comes down to this: Romanoff is an East Coast transplant who has lived in Colorado a couple more years than Bennet, and he has run a statewide campaign… — oops, since the statewide campaign he ran lost at the polls, maybe he shouldn’t bring that one up.
All this about Romanoff’s lack of message. What is Bennet’s message? I know better than you, trust me?
Bennet can claim he made a fortune in the private sector and has a family he thinks about when he’s considering the future. That’s about it! You nailed it!
see my lengthy post above.
you quoted is as unspecific as what Sue Casey wrote.
Bennet provides no more details than any other politician, and this type of messaging seems to sit well with the wishy-washy center.
As to a reason for voting for Bennet, no one on this site has offered anything more substantial than “he’s the incumbent, and I can’t see any reason to vote for a non-incumbent, and I really, really need a good reason to vote against an incumbent, and btw, how dare anyone else jump in the race.”