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 29, 2009 05:55 PM UTC
101 Comments
While the Speaker pursues raising money, Sen Benent leads in the US Senate.
Right now the only thing that I see coming out of supporters of the Speaker on the blogs is that some of them hate Sen. Bennet because the Governor chose him over the Speaker. The Speaker may not have been the 2nd choice. Many Latinos were angry that Sec.Salazar wasn’t replaced by a Latino.
That’s not a good strategy for defeating a vibrant sitting Senator.
Sen Benent is resonating if Arapaho County is an example.
I always give my reasons however you seem to wallow in shallow fluffy propaganda in favor of Bennet and I for one am tired of it.
Will you please write something that makes me think I should ignore his voting record and his flip flopping and vote for Bennet.
I think Ray should consider this a compliment.
Thank you twas brillig.
Ray is in love with Bennet, plain and simple. If he wants to overlook the fact that first Bennet was against unions and against healthcare reform and then went for everything once Romanoff threw his hat into the ring, than fine for him. Blindness has its positives.
Romanoff is a smart guy and he certainly is a better speaker than Bennet (which ain’t saying much, since listening to Bennet is the audio equivalent of watching snow melt), but his start has been shockingly sloppy and amateurish for someone with so much appeal and connections. He may have the idea of building to a crescendo at the end, but why not establish strong messaging and branding now when it matters most? A sloppy but beloved “golden boy” candidate versus a corporate-backed uncharismatic sycophant probably evens out in terms of campaign combat, but Romanoff really can’t afford to “dither” in raising funds and being competitive.
believe me. I am blogging for Bennet.
The President is endorsing him, as is Michael Hancock for that matter.
the President is also endorsing Arlen Specter over Joe Sestak (in a losing effort)
of the WH’s ability to dictate local politics, the Echo Chamber effect notwithstanding. (Of course, after Joe Biden was found in bed with Arlen…., but that’s neither here nor there). Since I’d like to keep The Myth alive for a bit longer, I rack it up to Rahm’s heavy-handed approach, taken without a clear view of what them ignorant locals think.
Sure, I’m all for progressive Senators and Sestak scores big in some other areas. And I hope he wins. Big.
But it’s a totally different situation here. Unless….. you are really trying to compare Bennet to Specter.
in that Barack Obama is supporting a candidate who is going to lose in Specter, and that is germane to the conversation since Ray touted the President’s endorsement as meaningful to Colorado Politics.
well-
a) Specter has been winning in PA for a long, long time so I’m not sure he’s going to lose.
b) even if he does- as long as Sestak wins, it’s good for Obama.
But the comparison is tenuous because PA & CO politics are very different. though as different as they are – I agree that the President’s endorsement is meaningful. It’s not decisive, but it’s meaningful.
Believe you that you are blogging for Bennet? Oh, I do believe you are blogging for Bennet. I belive you carry his muffin, so to speak, from “pasty chef speak.” I can’t fault you for passion, Ray, just clarity and sensibility.
Bennet early on was clear that he favored single payer and came out in favor of the public option before Romanoff entered the race.
As to unions, Bennet does not roll over for them (which in my opinion is a plus). But he clearly supports them and worked with them at DPS.
And in this state, “rolling over” to unions equates to actually supporting laws that allow people to join them. Wow, what a radical idea. Give employees the same rights as everybody and allow them first amendment rights of freedom of association. That is not rolling over in my view that is standing up to the entrenched power of the status quo. It may be shocking news Dave, but it should not be up to you other owners and CEO’s on who gets to join a union. The employees should be allowed to make that decision.
He absolutely didn’t come out strong for a public option or single payer (I don’t think he ever even went anywhere near that one), that’s why he got mocked on cable news for changing his tune as soon as he had a primary challenge.
I’m not writing off Romanoff, not now and not anytime soon. And look at where Arlen Specter is today vs. when he became a Democrat because he couldn’t win the Republican primary.
Bennet in my opinion made a grave mistake in his cram-down vote that is revealing to those who are not blinded by their love of Bennet. That love is unearned I might add.
First he demonstrated that he didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the economy and that the cram-down legislation was actually good for the banks as well as homeowners.
Second it highlighted that he was in the pockets of banks and corporations and that he would sell himself to the highest bidder.
Third and not by a long shot the least he screwed middleclass homeowners who only wanted the same bail out the banks were getting.
The reason I say the cram-down legislation was good for the banks is because many of these same banks are being stuck with a new wave of foreclosures. They are called strategic foreclosures and they are middleclass families walking away from their homes because the mortgages on their homes are higher than the value of their home. This means that even those who pay their mortgages or have paid off their homes are now stuck with homes below the value of what they paid for them. The next round of foreclosures are going to be what does the banks in. And I laugh because the idiot banks should have seen this one coming and welcomed the cram-down legislation. At least all the banks would have been on a level playing field.
But can you name a single elected official who hasn’t had at least one vote you seriously disagree with? I sure can’t.
If you want purity go to church, don’t look to politics.
I honestly can’t remember a vote by your Mom that I disagreed with. And you better not either, if you want to go back to Hawaii for Christmas! 😉
Aren’t we supposed to hold our elected officials accountable? I don’t seek purity in these people. They’re not gods (although I’m sure some think they are), but they are men and women who make alot of dough (no pun intended coming from a pasty chef) off our sweat and blood and suffering from their self-centered actions (or lack thereof). They have a responsibility to act with intelligence and discernment, but also to represent their constituents with spine and heart.
When they fail to do so, we have every right to complain and hold them accountable.
This Senator is a model Senator for the people.
Salazar, Ritter, and any other D who just isn’t D enough for you.
So How about some D’s in office that you do like.
How do you feel about the President? Senator Reid? Speaker Pelosi? Senator Udall?
Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, EMK (RIP), Jim Webb, Jared Polis most of the time, Bernie Saunders.
And Barack Obama, not because I agree w/ all his positions all of the time but because I have confidence that he approaches problems with intellectual discipline and I think he’s an extraordinary leader in a time of crisis. At least I hope he is, and I couldn’t name a better alternative. For the first time in a very long time indeed, I have the sense of a leader in the White House whom I respect.
Incidentally, David Brooks is rather interesting on this subject today ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10… ). Something about tenacity. On that basis, GWB was a great president. Not.
Jim Webb could get elected here. And obviously Polis- though I suspect he’d have a hard time out of CD2 or CD1.
The rest could never be elected outside Denver.
Ed Perlmutter most of the time, Sherrod Brown and, maybe, Dennis the K., although I’ll admit he’s a wee bit marginal for all but a handful of districts; still, rather have him in the House than not. Bill Richardson strikes me as talented and ok, with or without facial decorations. There are a couple of women from CA–one from Berkeley/Oakland as I recall–whom I also like but whose names are in a locked file at the moment.
Question for those more sophisticated that I in the ways of the Far Flung Territories (and that excludes very, very few if any): IF a candidate carried CDs 1, 2, and 7 by, say, 65%, what sort of percentages would be required from 3 & 4 to carry the state? I’m assuming 6 still requires passports and visas to come and go.
Or cast in a slightly different light: IF you were plotting a statewide campaign in which you decided to stake out a position far enough to the left of The Appointed One to distinguish yourself, what sort of percentages would you calculate needing from each of the seven CDs to win the primary, considering that this is an entirely different election than the general. Of course, feel free to argue with the latter assumption in offering your calculations.
but CD3 is, I believe, somewhere between 10-15%. It would be hard to win the 7th by 65%, which would basically be 100% of both indies and Dems.
I think in statewide races, Dems try to reach about 40% on the Western Slope which mitigates close races/even splits in the FR suburbs…
About one-third of the CD3 counties are pretty reliably Democratic in outcomes, at least in 2008. On one end, looking at Obama’s numbers, you have 70/30 split for McCain in Delta, Mesa, Montrose, Moffat, Rio Blanco; the opposite in Pitkin, La Plata and San Miguel, still D in Gunnison and Ouray, but a bit more evenly split, and right down the middle in Garfield.
I’m on the other side of this primary, but I think you’ve laid out some thoughtful arguments here.
One thing:
And yet, he takes the position he did on EFCA. Your reasoning was the same one that Bennet used on that piece of legislation, and he gets taken to the shed for it. Romanoff stakes it out on that particular issue, and on all the others he gets the leeway Bennet doesn’t.
At any rate, I agree that it ain’t over till it’s over, but the time frame is quickly shrinking for Romanoff to do something to jump start his campaign.
Some very able scribes enjoy an attempted riposte every now and then, however feeble their opposer’s limp thrusts may be against a sharpened foil. Don’t disparage someone for an occasional swat at flies.
It’s her/his Modus operandi. The JO we’re seeing posting on CO Pols after realizing that S2 is a barren wasteland is a far cry from her/his usual self.
My condolences.
And you’ve outlined some of why.
and I agree JO way more fun to read when she’s not bombing anyone.
I just think that, at the end of the day, all we have to work with on these candidates is where they stand on the issues. On all but one or two major pieces of legislation, I know where Bennet stands. Nearly the exact opposite can be said for Romanoff.
But you’re right. There are very few luxuries for Romanoff in this campaign. One of them is that he’s not under constituent pressure to stake out positions right now.
At some point, though, there’s going to need to be a piece of paper, or a website, that clearly lays out where he stands on the issues the US Senate is dealing with right now. I won’t even consider voting for him until I see that.
and 95% + of the rest of Colorado voters.
We are talking about a race for a U.S. Senate seat in a state that, last I checked, was pretty spread out. A state-wide campaign takes a long time. I can’tstand the guy, but Josh Penry is a great example of how to run an effective primary campaign with little money. You see and hear about him everywhere. Romanoff can’t just wait quietly and let Bennet get all the attention.
Sure Romanoff doesn’t have much money on hand. That is understandable. But he seems to just be sitting around waiting for the money to magically appear. When you don’t have money you need to find creative ways of reaching out to voters.
It can’t be hard for him to get on the radio, or local news. He did a couple of interviews right after he announced and then disappeared.
Sure, he makes appearances at certain metro area Democratic events (not the Jeffco Central Committee however), but where’s his organization? Why aren’t his loyal followers making phone calls? Knocking on doors? Spreading the word about how amazing Romanoff is? Where’s the social media campaign? These things don’t cost much but are effective.
I just feel like he hasn’t fully committed himself to this campaign.
So why should I?
…if I read that Andrew has been appointed ambassador to the Comoros. Seem to recall that Angie P. in the 4th CD dropped out when she got a better offer that was a sure thing.
I don’t know how AR spends his days, nor do I pretend to know the official Drop Dead Date for launching a full-scale public campaign. But I don’t think it’s passed yet…my only point in the above post, besides the notion that there are counter-intuitive strategies for someone in his rather strange position. Plus, he doesn’t suffer from the quite the same magnitude of “Andrew Who?” as does The Appointed One, and it remains to be seen whether being a Kissin’ Cuz to the Guv will prove advantageous or not. In the era of digital info, not sure whether the physical size of the state is an especially big issue.
PS for just for MADCO: (](([})[()[}]{)]… down where they belong, no doubt.
PS2: Just ran across interesting article in Centennialian. Will post shortly.
do something like call his campaign to see what’s going on rather than rely on your ‘feelings’ for information.
He had 2 organizational meetings scheduled–one last night [cancelled] and one tonight that will probably be cancelled.
I’ve received calls; a co-worker of mine has been making calls since he announced, and AR was warmly received at the Denver Cty central committee.
I don’t know that I disagree with his to-date low-key approach. The caucuses aren’t until March and the vote is probably in August. Even primary voters just aren’t that engaged in this time frame.
From latest edition of Centennialian:
…leading to multiple posts or partial posts of the same breaking news story
posted four times in a row.
It’s ok- comedy is hard.
I’ve announced that I’m running but I’m really waiting until Bennet makes mistakes to tell you what I stand for or gee, that was a good vote by the incumbent, I promise to do the same for the people of Colorado? How much are you getting paid to leak this intel?
who hate Sen Bennet for no apparent reason other than he does a good job
…does a good job satisfying the puppet-masters who have appointed him to a string of jobs, in none of which has he especially done anything to write home about. Full stop.
We really can’t keep on meeting like this! Whaddya say to 16th Street Mall, High Noon, six-packs, no more than 16-oz each. I’ll start on the west end. Last one standing is left holding the bag. We’ll see if we can get Pat Waak to referee. Oh, she’s in the bag? Well, lessee. Governor Ritter? Oh, forgot, he’s busy figuring out his next Big Surprise. Ok, the mayor? Merde, he’s in on the deal also. Well, now, that’s a problem… How ’bout Mordecai and Melodie Megabucks? I hear they’re homeless….
that he’s dong a good job and that he has the backing of so many people.
He doesn’t need to serve “puppet masters” to make a better living than what he makes as Senator. He took the job to help people.
I’ll let you get drunk on the mall. I’ll call Denver cares for you.
By the way, I lobbied hard for the restoral of the AND program. Many recipients will be living indoors this winter thanks to Gov. Ritter rescinding the program cut.
Bennet a very long time to decide that he was interested in public service. Like, hmmmm, most of his life until his appointment.
And that’s the major reason I don’t support him. His sudden interest simply isn’t credible.
So, being the mayor’s chief of staff and superintendent of city public schools doesn’t count as public service? Wha??? He did those things for purely selfish/financial/health reasons? The sneaky bastard!
But, anyway, how many years of public service must one have under one’s belt before one becomes qualified to engage in public service? Man, that’s a tricky equation! Did Joseph Heller write about this?
during the Clinton administration. But we all know that wasn’t “public service,” it was simply an appointment at the hands of his puppet masters!
possibly, not necessarily, aided by Papa Bennet’s job in the same administration and not hurt by Mikey’s academic record at Yale.
C’mon. This ain’t a race for sainthood. Separation of church and state and all that.
No, his career got interesting after he spent six years at the service of Philip Anshutz. Big bucks. And lust for political influence can be just as consuming as lust for bucks.
..so jobs right out of law school don’t count as public service? So, if Romanoff becomes senator, that won’t count as public service?! This high math is so crazy.
who take a job in the Justice Department would be delighted, and highly amused, to learn that they were engaging in “public service” making them eligible for sainthood before age 50, rather than, say, putting together a resume for a job in the private sector (such as the one Mikey took in due course).
No problem with floating some ideas to see what gets mileage, of course. But this “public servant” line, just like the “he’s now the new Ted Kennedy ’cause he’s on that committee” crapola, should be allowed to sink beneath the waves.
How ’bout this one: “His public speaking style reflects his desire not to make inarticulate members of the audience feel bad.”
Let’s draw it (figuratively).
Apropos of nothing, some random poster said that Bennet had not engaged in public service. Others, including most importantly, my esteemed self, pointed out that the claim was false…you know, factually speaking.
Then, suddenly, you showed up with some talk of “sainthood,” and here we are. But, note that no one in this line alleged that public service, or anything else, qualifed Bennet for sainthood. That allegation was the invention of another. Others like myself were simply engaged in the selfless, yeoman-like distribution of trivial but true facts. Facts dancing in a line.
but you seem to think anyone who doesn’t sing his praises is a Sinner!
Color me agnostic on Sen. Bennet.
This is absurd. Some clownish interloper made the blatantly untrue statement that Bennet didn’t have a history of public service. Jambalaya (and others) corrected this. Some other clownish Bennet haters turn this into an argument about sainthood, for no reason other than confusing the original, factual error.
in elected office. That point is irrefutable. As Lyndon Johnson liked to say, and it wasn’t a compliment: He’s never run for sheriff. As for public service, I think he has quite a bit. If the Senate was an appointive office, as it was in the original constitution, he might be a great candidate. But it’s an elective office and on that score, he’s fighting way outside his weight class.
in full-time office. That point is irrefutable. Nor does he have any experience running a big-city mayor’s office or running a challenging school district or, you know, serving in the Senate. So?
You can keep changing the topic as much as you want, but dfarrah’s original point wasn’t true (it was, in fact, a lie), and every attempt to point this out just brings more hysterical bromides. Good luck with those.
you ain’t never been around the Colorado legislature when its in session. Good luck trying to make a silk purse out of Bennet’s ear.
It’s time to accept that unfortunate fact.
I used to hardly ever get you
Now you crack me up most of the time, dangit.
people on this site are being so nice lately! Is this CoPols?!
🙂
just kidding
your rock. Facts are only some people’s friends, apparently. Thankfully, they are yours and mine. Well done.
a government entity does not equal public service–or the connection between the government job and public service may be so weak as to be nonexistent [IMO].
For example, Romanoff and Carrigan both volunteered time in South America [I think that’s the right continent]. Romanoff’s jobs as state legislature and teacher were not high paying jobs; Carrigan’s regent position is not compensated. Actions like these indicate a “service” attitude.
Bennet worked for the government and in private industry in well-paid jobs. I don’t perceive his history to be service oriented.
But if you have other information, post it.
I guess Bennet has neither engaged in, nor is running for election to remain in, public service. So what’s your beef?
don’t have any additional information regarding Bennet’s public service orientation [or lack thereof].
BTW, has he ever done anything for the Democratic party? Other than donations to specific politicians?
The humanity! Why do people do this to me?
Sigh. You initially asserted that you did not find credible Bennet’s aspiration to be US Senator because he had not engaged in public service before. Then, you defined “public service” in such a bizarrely narrow way as to exclude US Senator. So, then, if being a US Senator doesn’t qualify as public service, why do you doubt Bennet’s sincereity/credibility in his desire to remain a US Senator? Certainly his alleged absence of public service would be totally irrelevant, by your own definition. SO, I ask again, what in hell is your beef?!
Lord give me strength.
I believe the line goes roughly like this:
You: Apropos of nothing, some random poster said that Bennet had not engaged in public service. Others, including most importantly, my esteemed self, pointed out that the claim was false…you know, factually speaking.
Others: By “public service” we mean working in a low-paying (not to say “lower than it might possibly be”) position benefiting those most in need. Taking a government job to enhance one’s resume doesn’t get credit in the “public service” category, except in the self-serving definition offered by every person who gets a check from the government in exchange for a workday.
You: why do you doubt Bennet’s sincereity/credibility in his desire to remain a US Senator?
Others: We don’t doubt Bennet’s sincere desire to get into office. $$$s aren’t the only objects of lust. But we’re not giving him points in the sainthood category (a figure of speech) for doing so. He may get points for lots of things, but “dedication to public service” doesn’t appear to some of us to be one of them.
And now, Public Service calls. The World Series, in which the players are playing as a public service (they could be well-paid lobbyists working in air conditioned quarters while channeling contributions to favored candidates for the Senate), to keep alive an American tradition, keep alive the dreams of young boys in Cooperstown and little towns throughout the Western Hemisphere, that someday they, too, might sacrifice themselves as a public service to the Great American Mythology, department of steroidal sports.
what you read.
I never said that serving as a senator was not public service.
Merely holding a government position, IMO, is not necessarily public service or could be so far removed from public service that it doesn’t seem like public service — it depends on the position. Compare, for example, bennet’s background as chief of staff or super of the schools. These postions simply are not comparable to someone who is a teacher, a policeman, or a legislator.
Now, one can run for public office merely for self-aggrandizement, one can run for office in the genuine spirit of public service, or a combination of the above.
It’s easy to perceive Bennet as a mere climber, eagerly grasping for high paying, powerful, prestigious jobs. After all, that is about all he has done. If some of his work happens to benefit the public, well, that’s merely a nice coincidence. He does, after all, have to put some effort into being interested in the service side of being a senator–at least through the end of the election.
OTOH, in AR, there is a person who has repeatedly demonstrated a service attitude through his volunteer work, the work he has done to enhance the dem party in Colorado, and his teaching efforts.
And no poster in this diary has yet told me anything about bennet that indicates he has a genuine service attitude. Bennet’s background, as put forth by his campaign and his supporters, is not pursuasive
Hmmm, I disagree.
I didn’t get that from Jo’s post at all. As I read it all Jo was saying was that Bennet’s history doesn’t show a person dedicated to helping the common good only a person as appearances would have it who is a “mere climber”. I also would like to see an instance where Bennet showed a “genuine service attitude”. Can you provide me one?
Are you available?
huh?
That was directed specifically at someone fretting too much about placing them correctly. I re-read the post and concluded placement wouldn’t have changed much.
I was replying to dfarrah.
But MADCO can you provide me with one example where Bennet has done something for the public good without being paid?
For example I provide support for breast cancer survivors and those with chronic illness for free. And as a former Federal auditor I have a unique understanding of the politics of the medical industrial complex so I’m active politically there as well for free.
But Bennet has always been paid for his work and appears to swing with whatever is going to make him the most successful. Can you give me one example that would show he is not an opportunist and really does care for the public good?
4th day with this diary, and the MB supporters have provided nothing.
Now that is a prospect straight out of Hallowe’en!
Ok-
I’m not going to quibble much about the blog format or the mechanics of how it works-
But you said-
and then
So I reacted to you reacting to me – your reaction suggesting that I was misreading JO’s post. But I wasn’t reacting to JO’s post in that comment, I was reacting to dfarrah’s. Then you said you were reacting to me reacting to dfarah- which isn’t what you wrote.
As to the real point I think you and dfarrah are trying to make- “public good without being paid”
I though the sub-thread, starting with dfarrah was “public service”
Then there was a whole string of posts which you can read for yourself (just above) that conclude with you and dfarrach and JO attempting to redefine “public service” as somehow unrelated to salary or compensation. The “public good without being paid”.
Ok- I don’t know the Senator’s history well enough to know about charitable work or unpaid public good as you define it. I don’t know that part of AR’s history either, and it’s not the basis for my support of one and not the other.
ANd I do not accept dfarrah’s claim of either or
It could be neither. There could be other motivations. But however you define it – measuring genuine spirit of public service seems problematic.
And so I’ll rephrase my sarcastic Life long politicians are the only ones who should ever hold office.
Lifelong public servants, dedicated only to the public good and who build the party are the only ones who should seek or hold office.
Hmmm- I still disagree.
Ask people for money while refusing to tell them why they should give it to you (e.g., how your policy positions may differ from the other guy’s).
Also, I’m no political expert (as if I had to tell you!), but I don’t believe the calendar is a friend of Romanoff’s. The longer it takes for him to raise a bunch of money the less viable he is. And the longer he takes to convince people to give him money (see above) the less likely he will raise a bunch of money. As Pols has declaredly repeatedly, people give money to those who they think will win. An enduring image as an underfunded underdog will assure Romanoff’s position as an underfunded underdog. And so on…and so on…(and she told two friends and she told two friends and…)
…people give money, and reasons they give money early on. One of the latter is to assure the outcome by discouraging rivals, maybe to avoid a primary they’re uncertain their candidate can win, since in this case, he’s never won anything before.
As every bettor in the audience can tell you, putting money on a horse doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed a stroll back to the window to collect after the race is run.
I would think such bettors like to engage in risky purchases. I don’t find that to be true of most people, especially when money is tight. As every non-wealthy person in the audience can tell you, putting money into something that appears to be a lost cause doesn’t sound like much fun.
Could be that you’ve hit on why Bennet has a big campaign chest and Romanoff doesn’t.
Who was it that wrote the line about the rich being different?
Now, I know from Bennet supporters that no one will care whether his money comes from superwealthy donors from Scarsdale, but as free advice to his campaign, I’d offer the slogan:
Romanoff: Candidate of Colorado. His campaign is paid for by the people of the state he will represent.
Maybe a little map with noteworthy points such as Scarsdale, NY, highlighted.
[Note for the perplexed: in one recent report, it was seen that Bennet’s contributions from Scarsdale were on the order of $23,000, whereas he had raised only about $1,250 from Pueblo. Pesky GD facts!]
Stylistic note: The only people who say U.S. senators, ambassadors, White House chiefs of staff, etc. are engaged in “public service” are senators et al. and their flacks. Community organizers, soup kitchen managers, public defenders…people who really believe in serving those without resources: that’s a more widely accepted, less self-serving definition of the term, or so I think.
Stylistic note 2: While everything written here is fair game, I’m not sure how much literal weight figures of speech (“horse race”) can bear in terms of advancing one’s case.
The fingers remain nimble long after the brain is drained… Plus dinner is still on the assembly line…
You totally lost me anyway.
…Romanoff is too energetic and intelligent to not give up that easy… we’re talking the guy who organized the CODA Death Star…
I gotta believe that Romanoff understands campaigning outside of HD6 in Denver – after all, he was heavily involved in many State House and State Senate races
I will say this though – Bennet, to his credit, has been VERY active here on the Western Slope and, from what I know, the Eastern Plains when it comes to hosting town halls – all of these appearances are picked up in local papers and emails are sent between activists – everyone on the Western Slope knows who Michael Bennet is and we all know he fights actively for universal healthcare – that’ll serve him VERY well in a Democratic primary
Romanoff has the advantage of having an entire State House district in his pocket, but right now, I would bet that Bennet is killing Romanoff on the Western Slope and Eastern Plains, which could make a strong difference if this is a close race
Nonetheless – it’s only October/November – Romanoff ain’t gonna stay quiet forever….
Wait, what’s Al Yates running for? I’d vote for him!
A military target? Then name the system! I grow tired of asking, so this will be the last time. Where is your rebel base?
OK, as much as I tease Ali Hasan, any Star Wars reference gets big bonus points from me. My love for Star Wars is my weakness. (Your faith in your friends is yours.)
…you can consider that the rebel base
🙂
Sure, at the moment he’s thin on donors, cash, public appearances and well articulated positions that differentiate him from his opponent.
But so what? I don’t live in his district and so never watched him campaign for the previous offices he held. Perhaps this is how he’s always done it.
It’s early. Really early. Though I would argue that July is far too late.
Mixed together well enough to make them all seem like the latter.
They aren’t.
1 is.
2 is not. By your logic, Senator Udall must be beholden to donors from all over the country. Has any Colorado candidate ever raised $15million from just Colorado donors? 10m?
Perhaps AR can make the perceived weakness of fundraising into a strength: run the lowest of low budget campaigns, ideologically pure and not tainted by all the evil quidding and quoing that so clearly is caused by cash donations. I’d pay to see that. (Figure of speech- I’m not trying to taint the guy)
3. Hmm. Well if there was no primary, that would be ok. But I think the right kind of primary will make for a better nominee. Lets keep having it for now.
Concl: Well, I’m glad AR can read a calendar. With all that time as a low paid public servant it’s comforting to know basic literacy has not escaped him. Perhaps he is more like me than I perhaps otherwise would have thought.
Urgency does come later. As does panic and the victory dance, though usually not for the same candidate. There are some universal truths that matter in political campaigns. For example – perceptions matter. And you can never get back the time in the beginning of the campaign. I have no idea what AR is up to. And, fwiw, I don’t really have any idea how to run a successful campaign. I’m sure Senator Bennet has had many days feeling the same way, having never done this before. AR has never lost a campaign as far as I know – I trust that he knows what he’s doing.
And here I find something we can completely agree on: the future is yet to be seen. I prefer “the future is uncertain” but your way is just as correct. So let’s put a D in the seat in Nov 2010.
Jane Norton may have held what is technically an elected office, but she was chosen by Bill Owens as a running mate. Other than that, she has absolutely no campaign experience.
She’s never held an office where people were voting for her and only her, so in that respect she’s no less a “rookie” than Bennet.
Nate Silver is a smart guy, but I think that a lot of the times when national political pundits analyze races they don’t get all of the fine nuances that state campaigns tend to have. For instance, Romanoff is not a “rookie” per se, but he’s certainly never run and won a competitive race aside from a State House primary. Every race he’s run since has either been a walk or a loss. So, comparatively, he has an even shakier track record than Bennet.
His point about Obama may be true, but that is going to have an effect on the Democrat no matter who is running.
The whole “Norton is running, Obama’s losing support, and she’s held elected office before which means that the Democrat should have experience” thing Nate is touting here sounds good on its surface and plays well on Daily Kos, but it’s pretty hollow when you start to analyze it.
My point in sticking on the addendum was to observe that the various attributes of B. and R. in a debate among Democrats might (or might not) ignore their relative strengths in a race against Republicans. Being close to Obama is one such “strength” a year from now.
My point in sticking on the addendum was to observe that the various attributes of B. and R. in a debate among Democrats might (or might not) ignore their relative strengths in a race against Republicans. Being close to Obama may be one such “strength” a year from now.
This has got to be one of the most popular threads that never got promoted onto the Front Page.