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
March 07, 2010 11:31 PM UTC

Finally, Real Romanoff vs. Bennet Journalism

  • 14 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We know a lot of you have grown impatient lately with what many consider to be inadequate local political coverage, particularly from Denver’s only remaining newspaper of record, the Denver Post.

Well, folks, the reason we defend our few remaining local political beat reporters, like the Denver Post’s irreplaceable Lynn Bartels, even as we too are occasionally frustrated by editorial choices we tend to think are not made by her or her newsroom peers, are moments of greatness like today’s lengthy feature on the Democratic U.S. Senate primary between Andrew Romanoff and Michael Bennet. Excerpts of which include:

The politician who just over a year ago was considered a Democratic rising star is now resented, even reviled, by some who were once his biggest fans.

Since his surprise decision to enter the race in August, Romanoff’s political obituary has been written, rewritten, posted, pulled down, tweaked, shelved and dusted off.

One week a poll announces Romanoff is doing better against the Republican Senate candidates than Bennet. The next week he has to cut ties with one of his national advisers after a video surfaces of the guy bashing union leaders and environmentalists.

And Romanoff keeps on campaigning.

One Kiwanis member, after citing a string of what he says are Bennet’s shortcomings, including that the former Denver Public Schools chief was just seen “campaigning with a president going downhill faster than Bode Miller,” has a simple question for Romanoff:

“How can you possibly lose to this guy?”

Everyone laughs, especially Romanoff, but he knows that plenty of others wonder why he thinks he can win.

That’s as much as we care to cite here, please do give the Post the benefit of your click-through on this story. We regard it as a significant breakthrough for political news coverage this election year, and not just because it is the first major media in Colorado to introduce the Pat Caddell our readers are so well acquainted with. It’s the first story we’ve seen that actually sets out the long history of Romanoff’s shadowing the appointment of Michael Bennet to the Senate, the months “agonizing” over whether to get in the race while Bennet shored up his position, then the damaging uncertainty over running for Governor instead. More recently, the risky open campaigning against a popular Democratic president. And now, with caucuses less than ten days away, Romanoff is hitting his trademark small venues hard–but a vast fundraising disparity has accumulated…

Anyway, it’s the story you know, but you should take heart in the fact that it is being told accurately in major media. That’s all that was missing up to now, and maybe they really were just saving the good stuff for when lay newspaper readers are paying attention–like the week before caucuses.

If so, cheer it on–and watch for some entertaining Jane Norton features soon.

Tweet
Share

Comments

14 thoughts on “Finally, Real Romanoff vs. Bennet Journalism”

        1. That Pat Caddell was hired in the first place. It didn’t take more than a google search to see that he attacks Democrats as much the far right does on Fox News. The speaker then follows with a FOx news interview that gave Jane Norton a plug (not mentioning that she has a primary)

          This is relevant because the Speaker is using Republican talking points and appears to have shifted the ship rudder to the right.

          It’s inconistant as he has ran from the left of Sen Bennet for 6 months. He’s ignoring more traditional Democratic polls and noting  Rasmussen which skews right.

  3. ARs chances rest on the anti-incumbent mood sweeping the country. He’ll either rise or fall on this. Bennet’s apparent strength (incumbency trumping all) could be his Achilles’ Heel.

  4. Really, I can’t get too worked up about this primary.  And I hope it goes to a primary.  Bennet needs the greater public awareness that a primary brings and they both need to show an ability to campaign statewide.  If either one mudslings, he won’t run statewide again and have any chance to win.

    I’ll probably be running my precinct caucus so I will work to getting a good turnout.  I’ll vote when the time comes but I’m more interested in a good clean contest.

    1. He’s accused every Democratic Senator and candidate (actually both parties) that takes pac money as corrupt, even calling the party an incumbent protection racket (his words, not mine). At the same time the Romanoff Victory Fund PAC didn’t close until 01/15/10. He relies upon party officials to deliver counties at the caucus. It would appear to be hypocritical at best.  

      1. but I was referring to a primary campaign itself.  I’m hoping that AR will clean it up for that.  (I have no evidence to back up that hope, however.  Hope for the best, plan for the worst.)

        Also, in the caucus, if an AR supporter is there who is spouting some of this sketchy mud, I’ll shut it down.

        1. since when are caucuses about one side “shutting down” the other side? I thought it is a forum for fellow citizens to gather and hear all points of view, whether you like them or not or whether you agree with them or not. Pretty bad stuff to talk about stifling people’s free expression in caucuses.

          If you want to try to counter someone’s claims in caucus, that is a different thing entirely. Shutting someone down is inappropriate rhetoric IMHO.

          1. Would you object to dm saying he or she would “counter it with facts,” which is clearly what he or she is saying? Or would you still pretend to think he or she intends to stifle people’s free expression?

            1. That is a good explanation.  I can be accused of blurting sometimes.

              I’m all for someone expounding on a favorite candidate, but I’m not providing a platform for mudslinging.  If someone is there, which I don’t expect, to take down another Dem, I will use reasonable means to keep the discussion in a reasonable direction.

              Just for telling tales, two years ago we had two Kucinich supporters who wanted to extend the discussion longer than most of the people there.  They seemed to have the impression that if they kept talking long enough more people would vote for Kucinich.  So jp might call that shutting down one side but I call it keeping the discussion / debate respectful of all present, including the majority that wanted to move along.

              Believe me, I’ve been on both sides of this issue.  There comes a time when you have to stop and move on.

            2. I don’t know DM at all and was reacting to the words used, not speculating on their meaning beyond that.

              But thanks for your elucidation RG. Much appreciated.

  5. I hope you’re right, but this could be explained as stirring the shitstorm between Democrats too. I’ll believe it when I see this level of detail on Tom Wiens.

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

407 readers online now

Newsletter

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